TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1074X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nly on 21.11.1973. The High Court had accepted the submission of the assessee that the order, which was served beyond the period of limitation, could not have been passed before expiry of limitation on 06.01.1973. The order could have been communicated within a reasonable period. The High Court further held that the respondent-assessee was not bound by that order. The Hon ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh and held that in the absence of any explanation whatsoever, the Court must presume that the order was not made on the date it purported to have been made. Reference can also be made to a decision given by Hon ble the Supreme Court in AJANTHA INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS VERSUS CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest. For the assessment year 2010-2011, the petitioner had filed its quarterly returns in Form R-1. The assessment was framed by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 03.02.2014 (Annexure P-1) calculating an excess of Rs. 4,49,68,315/-. Thereafter, while exercising the revisional power, notice dated 13.09.2019 (Annexure P-2) for revising the assessment order dated 03.02.2014, was issued to the petitioner under Section 34 of the Haryana Vat Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act'). As per Section 34 of the Act, no order shall be revised after the expiry of period of six years from the date of supply of the copy of such order to assessee, except where the order is revised as a result of retrospective change in law or on the basis of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose of the financial year, for which, it was proposed to revise the assessment and secondly, that the findings given in the notice were purely of facts and the respondents were required to produce some evidence or documents/details to justify their claim. As per Section 14 (2) and Section 29 (1) of the Act, the company was not liable to preserve the account books after expiry of eight years from the close of the year. In the written statement, it is further stated that the revisional order was passed within six years as per the amendment made by the Government of Haryana in Section 34 (1) of the Act and vide notification dated 03.08.2015. The assessment order was passed on 03.02.2014 and the impugned revisional order has been passed with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the representative of the petitioner-company namely, Mr. Neeraj Jain was present on 03.02.2020 and had reiterated that the company had destroyed the account books after completion of eight years from the closing of assessment year. On the same day, the revisional authority had passed the impugned order. Hence, the present petition. He has referred to the judgment passed by Hon ble the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Khetmal Parekh, (1994) 93 STC 406 (SC) on the proposition that if, a revisional order has been passed within four years and served upon the assessee after substantial delay without any explanation, then the presumption would be that the order was not made on the date it purported to have been made and could ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been passed before expiry of limitation on 06.01.1973. The order could have been communicated within a reasonable period. The High Court further held that the respondent-assessee was not bound by that order. The Hon ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh and held that in the absence of any explanation whatsoever, the Court must presume that the order was not made on the date it purported to have been made. This view has been thereafter, followed subsequently in Sanka Agencies vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad, (2005) 142 STC 496 (AP); Chandrika Sao vs. Sales Tax Officer and another, (2015) 81 VST 86 (Ori) and Santosh Builder vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (2013) 57 VST 55 (A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he office of the respondent-authority on 03.02.2020, it would not be presumed that he had the knowledge of the above said order, which was served upon the petitioner-assessee on 29.12.2021. Moreover, as per Section 14 (2) and Section 29 (1) of the Act, the petitioner-company was not required to preserve the account books after expiry of eight years from the close of the assessment year 2010-2011. As per the judgments, referred to above, even though the impugned order was passed within six years, it was communicated to the petitioner after a gap of 22 months. There is no reasonable explanation, why it was communicated so late. Hence, from all angles, the impugned order(s) passed by the respondent-authority is liable to be set aside as it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
