9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 738X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner that the assessment for the four quarters ending May 31, 1981 was made by the Commercial Tax Officer and the order was passed on April 22, 1985. The petitioner appealed against the order on April 18, 1986. So a direction was given by the learned Assistant Commissioner upon the learned Commercial Tax Officer to hold fresh assessment by an order dated August 20, 1987. The learned Commercial T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned lawyer for the petitioner submits that there was inordinate delay in serving the copy of the ex parte reassessment order and the demand notice. No explanation for such delay was given. Therefore, the ex parte order of reassessment may be presumed to be barred by limitation. The demand notice and copy of the order should have been served by the respondents within reasonable time otherwise the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , is at all, applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. The fact of the case placed before the honourable court was that an assessment order was passed in September, 1969 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The order was revised by the Deputy Commissioner and he passed the order on January 6, 1973 but it was served after the expiry of four ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and it was done on August 19, 1991 just one day before the period of limitation. But neither a copy of assessment order nor demand notice could be served even after three years and that too at the request of the petitioner. The delay in service of notice of demand and copy of order without explanation obviously would give rise to the presumption that the ex parte order of reassessment alleged to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
