Unexplained delay in service of demand notices can justify presuming antedated assessment orders and quashing them.

Where demand notices are served after a long unexplained delay and the despatch record does not reliably establish timely service, the court may presume that the assessment orders were not made on the dates they purported to bear. Applying that principle, and noting that the assessee had been deprived of a proper opportunity in the assessment process, the High Court held that the impugned tax assessment orders could not be sustained. The orders were quashed and the matter was remanded for fresh assessment after hearing the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether assessment orders could be presumed to have been antedated where demand notices, though endorsed as despatched earlier, were served after a long unexplained delay, and whether such orders were liable to be set aside.

Analysis: The delay in service of the demand notices ranged from about one year four months to three years four months, while the Revenue offered no satisfactory explanation for non-service during that period. The despatch register produced by the Revenue was found unreliable, and the surrounding circumstances supported the inference that the orders may not have been passed on the dates they purported to bear. The reasoning adopted in earlier precedent was applied to hold that, in the absence of explanation, the court may presume that the orders were not made on the purported dates. Since the petitioner had also been deprived of a proper opportunity in the assessment process, the impugned orders could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The assessment orders were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded to the extent that the impugned tax assessment orders were quashed, and the matter was sent back for fresh assessment after hearing the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Where demand notices are served after a long unexplained delay and the record does not satisfactorily establish timely despatch and service, the court may presume that the assessment order was not made on the date it purported to bear, warranting interference and remand for fresh consideration.

---