Petitions Granted: Orders Set Aside for Late Notices, Remanded for Reassessment

The Court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the challenged orders under JVAT and CST Acts for various assessment years due to delayed service of demand notices. The matter was remanded for reassessment, with the Court directing the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to investigate the delays and take action to prevent future lapses. The Court emphasized the importance of timely assessments to avoid revenue loss, presuming that the orders were not passed on the purported dates due to lack of notice service explanations.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging orders under JVAT and CST Acts for different assessment years due to delayed service of demand notices.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged orders under JVAT and CST Acts for various assessment years due to delayed service of demand notices, arguing that the orders were passed after the limitation period. The petitioner contended that assessment orders were antedated to meet the limitation period. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Ramakishtaiah & Co., the petitioner argued that orders made after the limitation period without explanation should be presumed as not made on the purported date.

2. The petitioner relied on a Division Bench judgment of the High Court that set aside assessment orders where demand notices were not served promptly. The respondents argued that the petitioner regularly appeared before the authority, and ex parte orders did not necessarily imply antedating. They emphasized that notices were dispatched and recorded in the despatch register, disputing the presumption of antedating due to delayed service.

3. The Court examined the facts and the despatch register provided by the Revenue. Noting irregularities in the despatch register, the Court found that notices were not served promptly, ranging from one year four months to three years four months delay. Referring to the Supreme Court's precedent, the Court highlighted the presumption that orders made after the limitation period without explanation could be antedated.

4. Acknowledging the respondents' argument against presuming antedating solely based on delayed notice service, the Court noted the absence of explanations for the delays. Given the circumstances where the petitioner regularly appeared, yet orders were either ex parte or allegedly antedated, the Court found merit in presuming that the orders were not passed on the purported dates due to lack of notice service explanations.

5. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the challenged orders. The matter was remanded to the assessing officer for reassessment after providing the petitioner with a hearing opportunity. The Court directed the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to investigate the delay and take action against responsible individuals to prevent such lapses in the future, emphasizing the importance of timely assessments to avoid revenue loss.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment comprehensively, focusing on the arguments presented by both parties and the Court's reasoning leading to the final decision.

---