TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Learning from reported judgments : Tax officers and tax payers must not wait for limitation / last date, ensure serving / filing / complying well before last date. Even a few seconds delay can lead to situation of 'time barred', 'void', 'invalid','non existing', 'not effective' .
Electronic communication:
Electronic communication is easy, speedy, convenient, for all. Every one should take advantage of this facility to do work expeditiously and well before last date.
It is further advantage of electronic communication that one can find exact time of signature of document, transmitting of document, and receipt of document.
Therefore, it is easy for the receiver of any communication to ascertain date when it is served or filed.
Last date for certain work and actions
Some actions and work are required to be completed within prescribed last date to avoid situation of delay causing disadvantage. For example, payment within due date, investment within last date, putting to put to use of depreciable assets before cutoff date to avail advantage of depreciation / full depreciation etc.
In respect of all such acts and work we notice that litigation have taken place due to last moment action, causing doubts and need to establish fact of completing work within last date. Litigations have even reached till stage of honorable Suprem Court to settle the matter.
Therefore, last moment activities can invite troubles, uncertainities, litigation and lead to disadvantage like loosing entitlements, reduced benefits etc.
Working well within time is good for all
Working well within time is good practice for all. Even for government officers, if an action is taken or completed after the last moment, it can lead to the action being void due to limitation.
Recent judgment of the Supreme Court dismissing SLP of department:
The case reported as Union Of India & Ors. Versus Gocl Corporation Ltd. - 2026 (3) TMI 1354 - SC Order is a recent case.
First of all we notice that as usual, Revenue delayed filing in Petition even before the Supreme Court and the delay was not even explainable. Therefore it involved uncertainty and litigation.
Furthermore, in this case matter before the High Court was on issue of time barred service of notice by Tax Officer on assessee. Therefore, many assessee challenged it before High Court, by way of Writ Petition the High Court decided the issue in favour of assessee and held notice as time barred.
On reading of the judgment and various judgments referred therein we also find that similar litigations have taken place in parge number of cases and before several High Courts when delay of few days or even few seconds resulted in actions being time barred and void.
From order of the Supreme Court, with highlights added:
'ORDER
1. There is a gross delay of 480 days in filing the Special Leave Petition which has not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner.
2. Even otherwise, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.
3. The Special Leave Petition is, therefore, dismissed on the ground of delay as well as merits.
4. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.'
Observations of author:
The case was represented by Learned Counsels form both sides. Naturally, counsels were heard, although this is not mentioned in the order of Supreme Court.
The Judgment says ' we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court',
This shows a decision taken by their lordships after consideration of all aspects - that is judgment of High Court, which was challenged as well as judgments followed, considered and referred by the High Court.
It is not a case in which question of law is kept open.
It is not a simple statement like 'we are not inclined to interfere ....'
Therefore, the order of the Supreme Court, though short, is fully effective and it results in full approval of the judgment of High Court.
From judgment of High Court - important aspects and decision:
In majority of the cases, the notice under challenge in the instant writ petitions is dated 31.03.2021, however the notices have been issued from the office of the respondent-Department either on 01.04.2021 or on subsequent dates. This is the bone of contention as regards whether the notice which is issued itself on or after 01.04.2021 would be hit on the grounds of limitation. Since the issue is common in all these writ petitions, this Court is not referring to the actual dates in each of the notices.
However, in case if the service of notice has been done beyond 31.03.2021, i.e., on or after 01.04.2021, in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Versus Versus Ashish Agarwal - 2022 (5) TMI 240 - Supreme Court, it should be the amended provision which would come into force and for this reason, the impugned notice in all these writ petitions would not be sustainable. Nonetheless, the primary contention was that since in all these batch of writ petitions, the notice under Section 148 being issued beyond 31.03.2021 by the respondent-Department itself, as would be evident from the documents available with the respondent-Department, whether these impugned notices are liable to be vitiated holding them to be hit by limitation.
The honourable High Court referred and discussed several judgments relied on by both sides. These included notices issued under different law and in different circumstances. The referred judgments also included situation similar to situation prevailing in the case before High Court. That is issue and service of notice by electronic means including PORTAL OF DEPARTMENT.
After considering all the honorable High Court in conclusion in paras 24 and 25 held as follows ( highlights added bu author for analysis:
'24. With the aforesaid judicial precedents and the fact that the Delhi High Court has extensively dealt with these contentions (which have also been the contention of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax, for the respondents, in the present batch of writ petitions), and rendered the judgment in favour of the assessee, and which has not been further challenged by the respondent-Department till now. Therefore, we also are fully in agreement and endorse the views laid down by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Suman Jeet Agarwal (supra) and hold that the impugned notices in all these batch of writ petitions are barred by limitation under Sections 148 and 149 of the Act, since the said notices have left the I.T.B.A. portal on or after 01.04.2021.
'25. The objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned notices under challenge are barred by limitation is sustained. Therefore, the impugned notices in all these writ petitions are as a consequence set aside / quashed on the ground of it being barred by limitation.'
Observations of author:
For brevity, various judgments are not discussed and referred. Readers can have a look easily through links provided in judgments.
In some articles published on the website and written by author similar situations were discussed and it was suggested that every one should be careful to work well before the last date whether it be tax payer or tax officers. For tax practioners also it is advisable to work well before last date and in case of proceeding initiatied against clients, to carefully examine whether notice and order were issued/ served before end of limitation and in case if it not so then to challenge the same as time barred.
The issue discussed in this article is applicable to all and under all laws and general conduct of all concerned. Therefore, the article is placed under other category though issue in judgment referred was under Income Tax act.
So be careful, prompt and active always.