TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod and that too in a matter of recovery of the tax amount. It will be further relevant to mention here that it is not the case of the Revenue that the notices purported to have been issued forthwith after the order of issuance and they returned back and fresh notices were issued which were served upon the petitioner-assessee and it is also not the case of the Revenue that the petitioner avoided the service. Plea of the respondents cannot be believed that, notices duly issued and entered into the despatch register were kept in the office for one year four months to three years four months and they were used for serving upon the petitioner after such a delay. W.P. allowed. - W.P (T) No. 7422 ,7436,7447,7451,7456 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing officer on that date, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner the assessment orders were passed. It is also the contention of the petitioner that in one of the cases, though the petitioner appeared on the last date wherein its attendance is marked but on that date no assessment order was passed in that cases and according to the petitioner, the assessment orders were passed antedated so as to bring the assessment orders within the period of limitation, which already expired long back. The petitioner's contention is that if, the orders would have been passed on the purported date of order which has been shown in the order sheet, then the demand notices would have been served within the reasonable period of time. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where demand notices were not served upon the assessee for a long period. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents, Shri Ajit Kumar and Shri Rajesh Shankar, vehemently submitted that the petitioner was appearing before the concerned authority regularly and he had even filed attendance in writing, which fact cannot be denied. It may be true that some of the orders are ex parte orders but because of the fact that the orders were passed ex parte, it cannot be presumed that the orders were not passed on the date which is mentioned in the order itself. It is also submitted that in one of the cases, the petitioner's attendance has been recorded and in that case also, the petitioner's contention is that the order is antedated. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e notices were not served upon the petitioner for about minimum one year four months and maximum three years four months. There is no explanation by the Revenue as to how these notices were kept by the Department itself for such a long period and that too in a matter of recovery of the tax amount of ₹ 16,64,371 (against the JVAT liability for the year 2006-07), ₹ 28,49,152 for the year 2007-08 (JVAT), ₹ 34,69,132 for year 2008-09 (JVAT), ₹ 6,93,771 against CST liability for the year 2007-08, ₹ 36,20,224 for the year 2008-09 against CST liability. The honourable Supreme Court in the case of M. Ramakishtaiah Co. [1994] 93 STC 406 (SC) observed that, in the absence of any explanation whatsoever, the court must ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or non-service of notice in time. Be that as it may be, in this case admittedly the petitioner used to appear before the authority concerned and even then it appears that in all cases either ex parte order has been passed or according to the petitioner, though in the order sheet presence of the petitioner was recorded but assessment order was not passed on the purported date. It is also the stand that all notices of different assessment orders of different dates and years have been served upon the petitioner on one date, i.e., on July 31, 2012. In view of the above reasons, it may also be presumed that the orders may not have been passed on the purported date. Therefore, in that fact-situation and in view of the judgment of the honourable S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
