Presumption of Service in Reassessment and Four-Year Limitation Under the Bihar VAT Act Sustained

Notice sent by registered post to the correct address raised a presumption of service in reassessment proceedings under the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005, and the record showed that notice had in fact been issued. Limitation under Section 31 ran for four years from the expiry of the year in which the original or deemed assessment was complete; read with Section 24(3) and Rule 21, the relevant due date was 31 December 2009, so reassessment could lawfully be completed until 31 December 2013. A reassessment order dated 20 June 2013 was therefore within time, and later service of the demand notice did not by itself establish that the order was ante-dated or fabricated.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment order under the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was vitiated for want of service of notice, whether it was barred by limitation, and whether any presumption could be drawn that the order was ante-dated because the demand notice was served later.

Analysis: The notice sent by registered post to the correct address raised a presumption of service, and the record showed that the notice had in fact been issued in the reassessment proceedings. On limitation, the relevant period under Section 31 was four years from the expiry of the year in which the original assessment or deemed assessment could be treated as complete. Read with Section 24(3) and Rule 21, the due date for the assessment year in question fell on 31 December 2009, so reassessment could validly be completed up to 31 December 2013. The reassessment order dated 20 June 2013 was therefore within time. The later service of the demand notice did not, by itself, justify a conclusion that the order was fabricated or ante-dated, especially when the department explained the delay as a clerical lapse and the order itself showed that no one had appeared despite notice.

Conclusion: The challenge to the reassessment order failed; the notice requirement was not violated and the order was not time-barred or shown to be ante-dated.

---