Assessment limitation depends on timely passing of the order, not later communication, unless the statute requires service within time.

Under Section 15(4) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003, the limitation period governs when the assessment order is made, not when it is served on the assessee, unless the statute expressly makes communication a condition precedent. The distinction between passing an order and communicating it matters for appeal rights, but late service does not by itself render a timely assessment void. Departmental instructions requiring supply of orders by a particular date cannot expand the statutory limitation or invalidate an assessment otherwise made within time. On that reasoning, the assessment was treated as within limitation despite later communication.

---

---

Issues: Whether an assessment order under Section 15(4) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 had to be communicated or dispatched within the limitation period for making the assessment, and whether departmental instructions required service of the order within that period were binding on the assessing authority.

Analysis: The limitation prescribed by Section 15(4) governs the exercise of jurisdiction in making the assessment within three years from the close of the relevant year. The provision does not require that the order must also be served or communicated to the assessee within that period. There is a distinction between making an order and communicating it, and communication is relevant for the purpose of appeal but not for determining whether the assessment was made within time, unless the statute expressly says so. On the same reasoning, the departmental instructions relied upon by the assessee, which spoke of supply of orders by a particular date, could not enlarge the statutory requirement or make a timely assessment void merely because communication occurred later.

Conclusion: The assessment was not barred by limitation merely because it was communicated after the limitation period, and the departmental instructions were not binding in the manner asserted by the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the limitation issue, and the assessment proceedings were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a time limit for making an assessment, the order is valid if passed within that period even if communication follows later, unless the statute expressly makes service or dispatch within the limitation period a condition precedent.

---