2023 (5) TMI 1074 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Delayed Service of SCN - whether the impugned order dated 03.02.2020 (Annexure P-4), which was served upon the petitioner on 29.12.2021 i.e. after 22 months, would render the revisional order without jurisdiction? HELD THAT - This aspect has already been considered by Hon ble the Supreme Court in STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VERSUS KHETMAL PAREKH M. RAMAKISHTAIAH AND CO. 1994 (2) TMI 260 - SUPREME COURT . In that case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court had allowed the revision filed by the assessee on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner had passed the said order on 06.01.1973, but it was served on the assessee only 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 TAXES AND OTHERS 1975 (12) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT , wherein it has been held that non-communication of order is a serious infirmity. The ratio of the above said judgments is directly applicable to the facts of the present case - In the present case, the assessment order was passed on 03.02.2014 (Annexure P-1) and notice for re-assessment was issued on 13.09.2019 (Annexure P-2). Even though, the final order was passed on 03.02.2020 (Annexure P-4), it was received by the petitioner on 29.12.2021 i.e. after 22 months of passing thereof. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, no explanation has been given, as to why this delay took place and who was responsible for such a long delay in communicating the impugned order to the assessee. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the jurisdiction of the revisional authority to pass orders without direction to levy interest, the timeliness of the revisional order, and the communication of the order to the petitioner.

Jurisdiction of Revisional Authority:
The petitioner sought a writ to quash the order passed by the Revisional Authority and the tax demand notice, claiming they were without jurisdiction as there was no direction to levy interest. The assessment for the year 2010-2011 was revised after eight years from the relevant assessment year, which exceeded the statutory limitation period of six years under Section 34 of the Haryana Vat Act, 2003. The revisional order was challenged on the grounds of illegality and impropriety, as well as the absence of evidence or documents to justify the claim made by the respondents. The petitioner argued that the order was communicated after a significant delay, rendering it without jurisdiction based on legal precedents emphasizing the importance of timely communication of orders.

Timeliness of Revisional Order:
The revisional order, issued within six years as per an amendment to the Act, created a demand that was communicated to the petitioner after a considerable delay. The petitioner highlighted the delay in communication, citing legal principles that emphasize the necessity of timely communication of orders to affected parties. The petitioner's argument was supported by references to relevant case law, asserting that the delay in communication rendered the revisional order beyond the period of limitation, thus lacking jurisdiction.

Communication of Order to Petitioner:
The delay in communicating the revisional order to the petitioner was a central point of contention. The petitioner argued that the order, passed within six years, was received after 22 months, which was deemed unreasonable and without proper explanation. The petitioner's reliance on legal precedents stressed the significance of timely communication of orders to ensure their validity and effectiveness. The court, drawing on established legal principles, concluded that the delay in communicating the order rendered it ineffective and beyond the period of limitation, leading to the setting aside of the impugned orders.