Unexplained delay in serving assessment orders can trigger a presumption of antedating and justify writ relief despite an appellate remedy.

Unexplained delay in serving assessment orders can justify a presumption that the orders were actually made after the stated date and are therefore barred by limitation and without jurisdiction. Applying Sections 29(5) and 29(6) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008, the Court found no reasonable explanation for service delays of many months, treated the orders as antedated, and quashed them as time-barred. The existence of an appeal under Section 55 did not prevent writ relief because the petitions had been entertained, the appellate time had expired, and the circumstances warranted intervention to prevent injustice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment orders were barred by limitation and liable to be treated as having been passed after the prescribed period because of the unexplained delay in their service. (ii) Whether the existence of an appellate remedy under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 justified refusal to exercise writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment orders were barred by limitation and liable to be treated as having been passed after the prescribed period because of the unexplained delay in their service.

Analysis: Section 29(5) and Section 29(6) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 prescribed the time within which assessment orders after remand or setting aside of ex parte orders had to be passed. The orders were shown as having been passed on the last permissible date, but the copies were served only after a delay of about 28 months in three cases and 18 months in one case. The record and counter-affidavit disclosed no reasonable explanation for the prolonged inaction in serving the orders, and the unexplained delay gave rise to a legitimate presumption that the orders were antedated and in fact made after expiry of limitation.

Conclusion: The assessment orders were held to be of a subsequent date, barred by limitation, and without jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the existence of an appellate remedy under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 justified refusal to exercise writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The alternative remedy under Section 55 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 was not treated as an absolute bar. The petitions had already been entertained, the revenue had filed its defence, and the appeal period had meanwhile expired, leaving no effective remedy. In the circumstances of unexplained delay, possible manipulation in service records, and the need to prevent miscarriage of justice, the case warranted exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Court exercised writ jurisdiction and did not decline relief on the ground of alternative remedy.

Final Conclusion: The assessment orders were quashed and the writ petitions were allowed, with the Court also directing inquiry into the service records and responsibility for the delayed service.

Ratio Decidendi: Where service of an assessment order is unexplainedly delayed for a long period beyond the limitation regime, a presumption may arise that the order was actually passed after the purported date and is therefore barred by limitation; an alternative appellate remedy does not preclude writ relief in such circumstances.

---