Limitation runs from communication of the order, and non-service alone does not invalidate assessment under the sales tax law.

Limitation under section 12(4) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act was held to run from communication of the assessment order, not merely from the date of the order, because the same expression in sections 12(4) and 12(5) must bear the same meaning. The Court rejected any deemed communication after a reasonable time and treated the revisional action as timely on the facts. It also held that an assessment order is not invalid or incomplete merely because it was not served on the assessee, since neither the statute nor the rules made service a condition of validity. Non-communication did not defeat revisional jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revisional power under section 12(4) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act was barred by limitation where the assessment order had not been communicated to the assessee; (ii) Whether an assessment order under the Act was invalid or incomplete merely because it had not been served on the assessee.

Issue (i): Whether the revisional power under section 12(4) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act was barred by limitation where the assessment order had not been communicated to the assessee.

Analysis: The limitation scheme in section 12(4) and section 12(5) was read by the Court as starting from the date of communication of the order, not from the date of the order itself. The same expression used in both provisions was required to bear the same meaning. The Court rejected any deeming fiction that communication must be presumed within a reasonable time. On the facts, the revenue had not shown that the revisional action was beyond the statutory period computed from communication.

Conclusion: The revisional proceedings were not shown to be time-barred and the objection on limitation failed, in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether an assessment order under the Act was invalid or incomplete merely because it had not been served on the assessee.

Analysis: The Court held that neither the statute nor the rules required service of the assessment order on the assessee as a condition of validity. Rule 13 required a demand notice only where tax was found due, and the absence of such service did not make an otherwise lawful assessment incomplete or void. Even if the assessment were assumed to be irregular, the revisional power under section 12(1) could still be exercised over the subordinate proceeding.

Conclusion: Non-communication of the assessment order did not invalidate the assessment, and the revisional authority retained jurisdiction, in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The revision challenge to the enhanced taxable turnover failed, and the revisional order as affirmed by the appellate tribunal was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute ties limitation to communication of the impugned order, the period runs only from communication, and an assessment is not invalid merely because it has not been served unless the statute so requires.

---