9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nature had to be put on 23rd June 2020. It is also pertinent to note that the order which he had served by email on 24th June 2020 in the reference states 2020-21. Therefore, it is obvious that both are different documents. In view thereof, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is the order which has been made is dated 23rd June 2020. In the affidavit in rejoinder, it is categorically stated that even the MVAT portal shows only this order of 23rd June 2020 and there is no order of 19th March 2020. The impugned assessment order having been passed after expiry of four years from the end of the year containing period to which return relates, is not a valid order and same is quashed and set aside. Petition allowed. - K.R. SHRIRAM JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Gopal Mundhra a/w Mr. Parth Parikh and Mr. Darshan Madekar i/by Economic Laws Practice. For the Respondent-State : Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. G.P. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) : 1. Since pleadings are completed, we decided to dispose this petition at the admission stage itself. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Petitioner is a dealer engaged in the business of trading of IT and electronic equipmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of expiry of period of limitation for assessment and, therefore, the assessment order is bad in law. 10. Ms. Chavan strongly opposed the petition and submitted, at the outset, that sub-section (5A) of Section 23 of the MVAT Act is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case since the said sub-section is applicable only where the Assessing Authority decides that the assessment proceedings is fit for closure on filing of revised return. Ms. Chavan submitted that if the Assessing Officer comes to such a decision then, he shall intimate to the dealer his observation about tax liability and interest payable. If dealer agrees with all the observations and files revised return within 30 days from the date of receipt of intimation by him and also pays tax and interest applicable till date within the period of 30 days, in such situation, sub-section (5A) would be applicable. 11. On the point of limitation raised by petitioner that the assessment order has not been made within four years from the end of the year containing the period to which return relates, Ms. Chavan submitted, relying upon an affidavit of one Sambhaji Kisan Yadav affirmed on 14th November 2022, that the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limitation for assessment under the respective sub-section under which the assessment order could be passed. If the dealer agrees with all the observations in the intimation and files the return or, as the case may be, a revised return under clause (c) of sub-section (4) of section 20 and also makes the full payment of tax as per such returns and also applicable interest, then a confirmation order shall be passed in the prescribed manner under this sub-section and the assessment proceedings shall be deemed to have been closed. .. 14. Sub-section (2) of Section 23 very clearly provides that where the return in respect of any period is filed by a registered dealer by the prescribed date and if the Commissioner considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that return is correct and complete and he thinks it necessary to require the presence of the dealer or the production of further documents, he shall serve on such dealer, a notice requiring him on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend and produce or cause to be produced all documents on which such dealer relies in support of his return or to produce such documents or evidence as is specified in the notice. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the ERP System (hereinafter referred to as the 'SAP System') of Respondent No. 3. 19. The Petitioner conducted the inspection of SAP System of the Respondent No. 3 on 22.11.2020. A PDF copy of the assessment order as available in SAP System was provided to the Petitioner on a pen drive. The pen drive is annexed to this Rejoinder and marked as Exhibit A. The printout of the assessment order as available in SAP System is annexed and marked as Exhibit B to this Rejoinder. 20. The Petitioner submits that order available in the SAP System of the Respondent No. 3 was digitally signed on 23.06.2020 and is bearing the same number as that of the Impugned Order which was served upon the Petitioner. The Petitioner submits that on physical verification of SAP System it was observed that the Purported Order dated 19.03.2020 was not available in the SAP System of the Respondent No. 3. Therefore, it is established that even as per the SAP records of Respondent No. 3, Impugned Order dated 23.06.2020 is the only order issued by the Respondent No. 3. 21. Further, the Petitioner submits that on verification of properties of the soft copy of the order provided by the Respondent No. 3, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24th June 2020 in the reference states 2020-21. Therefore, it is obvious that both are different documents. In view thereof, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is the order which has been made is dated 23rd June 2020. In the affidavit in rejoinder, it is categorically stated that even the MVAT portal shows only this order of 23rd June 2020 and there is no order of 19th March 2020. 19. In these circumstances, we hold that the impugned assessment order having been passed after expiry of four years from the end of the year containing period to which return relates, is not a valid order and same is quashed and set aside. In view of these categorical findings of ours, we are not devoting time to deal with the submissions of the parties with regard to sub-section (5A) of Section 23 of the MVAT Act. 20. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (c) which reads as under : (c) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling for the records pertaining to the Petitioner's case and after going into the legality and validity thereof forthwith quash and set aside the Orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
