Time-barred reassessment orders were quashed where delayed service and irregular procedure justified an inference of antedating.

Fresh reassessment under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act had to be completed within the statutory limitation period after the earlier assessment was set aside. The orders were served only after limitation had expired, and the authority gave no satisfactory explanation for the delay or for non-compliance with the prescribed service procedure under the Rules. In these circumstances, the Court drew an inference that the orders had been antedated to avoid the statutory bar. The reassessment orders were therefore held to be time-barred and were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment orders were liable to be quashed as time-barred and antedated in view of the unexplained delay in service after expiry of the statutory period of limitation.

Analysis: The fresh assessment under Section 29(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 had to be made within the prescribed period after the earlier order was set aside under Section 32 of the same Act. On the admitted facts, the limitation expired on 31.3.2017, while the impugned orders were served only on 13.9.2017, after a substantial delay. No satisfactory explanation was offered for the delay in service, nor was there any material showing compliance with the prescribed modes of service under Rule 72 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2008. In these circumstances, the Court drew the legitimate inference that the orders had been antedated to overcome the statutory bar of limitation.

Conclusion: The reassessment orders were held to be beyond limitation and were quashed; the writ petition was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The Court accepted the challenge to the reassessment orders on the ground that unexplained delayed service, coupled with non-compliance with the prescribed service procedure, justified the inference of antedating and rendered the orders unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a reassessment order is served long after expiry of the statutory period and the authority offers no satisfactory explanation for the delay or for non-compliance with the prescribed service procedure, the Court may presume that the order was made after expiry of limitation and quash it as time-barred.

---