2005 (3) TMI 738 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in serving the copy of the ex parte reassessment order and demand notice.
2. Question of limitation in the ex parte reassessment order.
3. Applicability of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in a similar case.
4. Validity of the ex parte order of reassessment.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case pertains to the delay in serving the copy of the ex parte reassessment order and demand notice. The petitioner argued that the order was passed on August 19, 1991, but the copy and demand notice were served only on October 21, 1994, after a request made by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that such delay without any explanation could lead to the presumption that the order was back-dated to save the limitation.

2. The next issue involves the question of limitation in the ex parte reassessment order. The petitioner raised concerns about the order being barred by limitation, as the assessment was made on August 19, 1991, but the copy and demand notice were served after more than three years. The petitioner argued that the delay in serving the notice and order should be considered in determining the validity of the reassessment order.

3. The court considered the applicability of a principle established by the Supreme Court in a similar case, State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Ramakishtaiah & Co. The Supreme Court in that case held that if there was a delay in serving the assessment order without any explanation, it could be presumed that the order was not made within the prescribed period. The court in the present case analyzed the facts and circumstances in light of this precedent to determine the validity of the reassessment order.

4. Lastly, the court examined the validity of the ex parte order of reassessment dated August 19, 1991. Considering the delay in serving the copy of the order and demand notice, the court held that the order was not passed within the four-year period as required by the Act. Relying on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the court concluded that the reassessment order was liable to be set aside and, therefore, quashed the order. As a result, all revisional orders passed by the revisional authorities were deemed to fail, and the application was allowed without costs.