1996 (4) TMI 483 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the order served beyond four years from the date of the original order.
2. Interpretation of the period of four years prescribed in section 20(3) of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the order served on November 13, 1995, beyond four years from the original order dated March 16, 1991, arguing it was invalid under section 20(3) of the Act. The appellant contended that the order was served beyond the permissible period, rendering it illegal and without jurisdiction.

2. The respondent, represented by the Special Government Pleader, argued that the order passed on March 15, 1995, was within the four-year limit as prescribed by section 20(3) of the Act. The respondent asserted that the service of the order on the dealer is an administrative duty, not bound by the four-year limitation, emphasizing the need for expeditious service within a reasonable period.

3. The central question revolved around whether the four-year period in section 20(3) of the Act includes the time taken for the service of the final order. The appellant relied on legal precedents, including State of A.P. v. M. Ramakishtaiah & Co. and State of A.P. v. Toshiba Anand Batteries Ltd., to support their argument regarding the importance of timely service of orders.

4. In the case of State of A.P. v. M. Ramakishtaiah & Co., the Supreme Court emphasized the significance of timely order service, holding that delays without explanation could render an order invalid. However, in the present case, the order was passed within the four-year limit, and a satisfactory explanation for the delay in service was provided, distinguishing it from the cited case.

5. Referring to State of A.P. v. Toshiba Anand Batteries Ltd., the Court highlighted previous decisions affirming that the period of limitation under section 20(3) of the Act encompasses the entire revision process, including the passing of the final order. The Court cited various cases to support the interpretation that the order must be passed within the four-year limit, even if the service occurs later.

6. Considering the consistent legal stance taken by the Court on the interpretation of the four-year limitation period under section 20(3) of the Act, the judgment concluded that the impugned order was valid and just. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the order was passed within the statutory limit and did not warrant any interference. The appellant was not awarded any costs, and the appeal was consequently dismissed.