9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 517X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the case, is that the reopening of the assessment proceeding under section 14(4-A) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act (for short "the Act") was barred by limitation inasmuch as the original order of assessment was passed on December 16, 1983 which order was served upon the assessee on January 19, 1984, and the escaped assessment order was passed on January 8, 1988 and served upon the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er was served upon the assessee only on November 21, 1973. The assessee had come up with the case that though the order of revision was purported to have been passed on January 6, 1973, yet it was not actually so and had been ante-dated to bring it within the four years period under section 22(2). Their Lordships held that when the department has not come forward with any explanation as to why the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for 10½ months and hence argument was raised that the order had not been passed on the day on which it was purported to have been passed. It was specifically observed in the judgment that the department had not come with an explanation and that had there been a proper explanation, that would have been a different matter. Reliance is also placed by Mr. S. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The requirement to communicate the order promptly is not a question of limitation in itself, but is a requirement of fairness and propriety, i.e., of natural justice. Section 14(4A) of the Act no doubt is couched in the same language as section 20(3) of the Act, but on the facts of the present case we do not think that there was such unexplained or inordinate delay so as to throw out the fresh ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
