1994 (2) TMI 260 - SC - VAT / Sales Tax

Dismissal of civil appeal in tax revision under s.22: order invalidated as time-barred due to ante-dating and unexplained delay

The SC dismissed the civil appeal in a tax revision under s.22 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, accepting the assessee's contention that the ... Limitation for revision under section 20 - Ante-dating of orders - Service/communication of orders and presumption of delayed making - Onus to explain delay in communicationLimitation for revision under section 20 - Ante-dating of orders - Service/communication of orders and presumption of delayed making - Onus to explain delay in communication - Validity of revision orders purportedly dated within the four-year revision period but served after that period where no explanation is furnished for the delay in communication. - HELD THAT: - The Deputy Commissioner's revision order was dated January 6, 1973 while the original assessment order was made in September 1969. The revision order was, however, served upon the assessee only on November 21, 1973, i.e., after the expiry of the four-year period prescribed by section 20. In the absence of any explanation from the Deputy Commissioner for the long delay in communication, the Court presumes that the order was not in fact made on the earlier date it purports to bear and could have been made after the prescribed four-year period. That presumption renders the revision order invalid on limitation grounds. The alternative reasoning adopted by the High Court - that every order must be communicated within a reasonable period - was not necessary to decide the matter; the appeal is disposed of on the undisputed fact of unexplained delayed service leading to the presumption of ante-dating.Revision orders served after the four-year period, without any explanation for delayed communication, are presumed to have been made after the limitation period and are therefore invalid.Final Conclusion: Both appeals are dismissed on the ground that the revision orders, though purportedly dated within the four-year period, were served after that period and, in the absence of any explanation for the delay, must be presumed to have been made after the prescribed period; no costs. The Supreme Court dismissed Civil Appeal No. 491 of 1977 and Civil Appeal No. 1014 of 1977 as the orders were communicated to the assessee after the expiry of the prescribed time period without a proper explanation. The High Court's reasoning on communication of orders was not necessary.