TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1015X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he essence under Section 15(4) of the HVAT Act is to assess to the best of assessing authority's judgment the amount of tax due from the assessee and not communication of assessment order. Hence the assessment had been made within the time prescribed and the date of the communication could not be taken as the date of making of the order as per observations of the Apex Court in Amar Singh Karika [1966 (1) TMI 79 - Supreme Court of India ] and Mangal Sen Shyam Lal Bhagwan Industries's cases (1975 (4) TMI 96 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). In Kappumalai Estate's case (1997 (3) TMI 39 - KERALA High Court), the Kerala High Court again applying the principles laid down in Government Wood Work's case (1987 (1) TMI 451 - KERALA HIGH COURT) has taken similar view. - No merit in appeal - Decided in favour of Revenue. - VATAP No. 88 of 2014 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 25-7-2014 - AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND JASPAL SINGH JJ. Rajesh Jain and Amit Jhanji for the appellant. JUDGMENT This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short, the HVAT Act ) against the order dated 21.5.2014, Annexure A.4 passed by Haryana Tax Tribunal, (in sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rounds including the ground of limitation. Vide order dated 18.11.2013, Annexure A.3, the [JETC(A)] rejected the appeals of the appellant. On the issue of limitation, he held that there was no requirement to serve the order on the dealer before the expiry of limitation for framing the assessment. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant filed two appeals before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 21.5.2014, Annexure A.4, on the preliminary issue of limitation, the Tribunal did not find any merit in the submissions of the appellant. The appellant produced instructions dated 13.12.2004 and 14.3.2006 to the effect that assessment orders for 2003-04 were not only to be made but served on the assessee within the period of three years. The Tribunal held that the said instructions were not binding on the assessing authority for not being issued under section 56(3) of the HVAT Act. Certified copy of the order dated 21.5.2014 was dispatched from the Tribunal on 12.6.2014. The appellant received the said copy on 22.6.2014. The Tribunal decided the preliminary issue of limitation and the appeals are yet to be decided on merit. There being no alternative remedy available, the appellant is before this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asses communication thereof unless statute so specifically provides. The order of assessment can be communicated to the assessee within reasonable time without any specific time limit, and liability would accrue from the date of its communication. The limitation for purposes of appeal or revision would commence only after the order is communicated to him. In other words, the provision of Section 15 of the HVAT Act, nowhere envisages that the order of assessment is required to be communicated within the period of three years. It only contemplates exercise of jurisdiction in passing assessment order within a period not exceeding three years. Once that jurisdiction has been exercised within the stipulated period, the communication thereof being ministerial act can be even after the expiry of period of three years. It is not provided under Section 15 of the HVAT Act that the date of dispatch or service of the assessment order on the dealer would constitute the date of the passing of the order. It is also not provided that it is the sine qua non for treating the date of passing of the assessment order. 8. The Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab vs. Amar Singh Karika ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). 12. In all fairness, we now advert to the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant. 13. In Qimat Rai Gupta's case (supra), the Apex Court was dealing with the provisions of Section 126(4) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. It was explicitly held that we are, therefore, not in a position to persuade ourselves to follow the line of reasoning adopted by the division Bench of the High Court that unless the order is communicated, it should be deemed to have not been made. Infact, the aforesaid observations in no way advance the case of the appellant. 14. In M/s M.M.Rubber and Co. Tamil Nadu's case (supra), the point for consideration before the Apex Court related to limitation under Section 35E(3) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. Section 35E(3) of the Act prescribed that no order thereunder would be passed after the expiry of one year from the date of decision or order of the adjudicating authority. Examining the factual matrix therein, an order in favour of the respondent assessee was passed by the Collector of Central Excise, as an adjudicating authority on 28.11.1984. Its copy was supplied to the respondent on 21.12.1984. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee to have his case settled. In this case, dispute arose when order in original passed by the adjudicating authority was dated 24.12.2009 though it was received by the petitioners after 8.1.2010, which was the date on which the petitioners had filed their settlement applications under Section 32E of the said Act. In this context, the High Court while dismissing the writ petition held that the proceeding would be regarded as pending before an adjudicating authority till the order does not go out of his control which happened on 31.12.2009. Thus, on 8.1.2010, when the settlement applications were filed by the petitioners, the matter before the adjudicating authority had already been adjudicated. There is no parallel between this case and the instant case. The present case pertains to Haryana Value Added Tax Act and the remedy for aggrieved appellant dealer from the assessment order is to prefer an appeal against assessment order and undoubtedly clock of limitation would not start ticking till order is communicated to the aggrieved party. 16. In Government Wood Work's case (supra), the question before the Kerala High Court related to re-assessment under Section 35 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
