TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1042X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It must be presumed that the order was not passed on the date it is purported to have been passed but it was passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under section 20(3) of the Act - the order cannot be sustained being barred by limitation - Petition allowed. - Writ Petition No. 9344 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 16-8-2011 - GODA RAGHURAM AND RAVI SHANKAR N., JJ. ORDER :- The order of the court was made by GODA RAGHURAM J.- This writ petition is directed against the revisional orders dated August 31, 2006, passed by the first respondent in proceedings bearing R.V. No. 239/04-05/A6 and the consequent order passed by the second respondent bearing GI No. 12537/2001-2 dated November 7, 2006, seeking recovery of tax of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent issued proceedings for attaching the pending bills due to the firm under sections 16C and 17 of the APGST Act and section 29 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and that these proceedings for attachment were pursuant to the order dated August 31, 2006 passed by the first respondent, exercising the power of revision under section 20(2) of the Act. The petitioner assails the order purportedly passed by the first respondent on August 31, 2006 and never communicated to it on the ground that the said order is barred by the limitation period prescribed under section 20(3) of the Act, which enjoins that the power of assessment shall be exercised within a period of four years from the date on which the order of assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TC): The next question that has been argued before us is the issue of limitation. The impugned order of the Commissioner bears the date November 20, 1995. It purports to revise the order dated November 25, 1991 passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Kakinada. That order was served on the petitioner on January 27, 1992. For setting aside that order in exercise of revisional powers under section 20(1), a limitation of 4 years from the date of service of notice is prescribed. It is not in dispute that the last date for passing a final order in exercise of revisional power under section 20(1) is January 27, 1996, i.e., four years from the date of service of the appellate order. Though the impugned revisional order of the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... however, four covers were returned undelivered with postal endorsement addressees not traceable or available in this address and that as a last resort, the revisional order was served by affixture on August 16, 2007. As already noticed, in the facts of the case, the revisional order was required to be passed by November 4, 2006, but was admittedly sent to the partners of the firm including the petitioner by registered post acknowledgement due on July 20, 2007, beyond the period prescribed under section 20(3) of the Act. There is no explanation as to what steps were taken from August 31, 2006 till July 20, 2007 to communicate the revisional order to the petitioner. In view of these circumstances, it must be presumed that the order was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
