2009 (12) TMI 859 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to the assessment order on grounds of being void and backdated, Allegation of non-service of notice, Overwriting of the date of the order, Delay in sending demand notice, Assessment order exceeding the period of limitation, Allegation of fraud by the assessing officer.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to the assessment order:
The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated May 12, 2008, and the demand notice for the fourth quarter ending March 31, 2006, on the basis that the assessment was void and backdated. The petitioner argued that the order was backdated as no notices were given for the hearing on May 12, 2008, and there were anomalies in the process, indicating that the assessment was not conducted within the prescribed period of limitation.

2. Allegation of non-service of notice:
The petitioner contended that no notices were served for the hearing dated May 12, 2008, and that the assessment order was ex parte, indicating a lack of opportunity for the petitioner to be heard. The respondent failed to produce any evidence to prove that an order was passed on the adjourned date of April 23, 2008, further supporting the petitioner's claim.

3. Overwriting of the date of the order:
The petitioner highlighted discrepancies in the date of the order, suggesting that the date was overwritten, leading to confusion regarding the actual date of the assessment order. The analysis of the date and the circumstances surrounding it raised doubts about the authenticity and timeliness of the assessment process.

4. Delay in sending demand notice:
The delay in sending the demand notice, taking more than six months for processing and over 60 days for posting, was a crucial point of contention. The abnormal delays in sending the notice were not adequately explained, leading to suspicions regarding the timeliness and validity of the assessment order.

5. Assessment order exceeding the period of limitation:
The petitioner argued that the assessment order was made beyond the period of limitation, as evidenced by the delays in sending the demand notice and the anomalies in the process. Citing relevant legal precedents, the petitioner contended that the assessment order should be set aside due to being barred by limitation.

6. Allegation of fraud by the assessing officer:
The petitioner accused the assessing officer of practicing fraud by fabricating the date of the order. However, as fraud was not specifically asserted in the initial application, the tribunal could not examine this claim. The issue of fraud raised concerns about the integrity of the assessment process.

In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the application, setting aside the impugned assessment order and demand notice. The detailed analysis of each issue, including discrepancies in dates, delays in processing, and concerns regarding the period of limitation, supported the decision to invalidate the assessment order. The judgment emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal timelines in conducting assessments.