Unexplained delay in serving a revisional order can trigger a presumption that it was made after limitation expired.

Unexplained delay in communicating a revisional order can justify a presumption that the order was not actually made on its stated date and may have been passed after expiry of the limitation period under the sales tax law. The Court noted that the revisional order under section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was said to have been made within time but was served much later, with no explanation for the delay. It rejected the broader proposition that communication within a reasonable time was independently necessary, but accepted the presumption arising from the unexplained delay. The challenge to the revisional order therefore failed and the appeals were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional order, though stated to have been made within limitation, could be treated as invalid because it was communicated after an unexplained delay and whether such delay justified a presumption that the order was actually made after the expiry of the prescribed period under the sales tax law.

Analysis: The assessment order had been made in September 1969 and the revisional order under section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was stated to have been passed on 6 January 1973, but it was served only on 21 November 1973. The Court found that there was no explanation whatever for the long delay in communication. In the absence of any explanation, the Court held that it was permissible to presume that the order was not in fact made on the date it purported to bear and that it may have been made after the expiry of the four-year period prescribed under section 20. The High Court's broader theory requiring communication within a reasonable time was not accepted as necessary for disposal of the case.

Conclusion: The challenge to the revisional order failed and the appeals were dismissed.

---