Limitation and valid service under VAT law governed assessment validity; stale notices and delayed orders could not stand.

Assessment for assessment year 2012-13 was time-barred because the orders were passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 29(6) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008, and they were quashed. Assessment for assessment year 2013-14 was unsustainable because notice was not served at the updated business address and affixation at the old address did not comply with Rule 72 of the U.P. VAT Rules; the defect went to the root of the proceedings, so the order was set aside. The writ petition succeeded, and the authorities were left free to proceed afresh in accordance with law by serving notice at the correct address.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment orders for assessment year 2012-13 were barred by limitation under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008. (ii) Whether the assessment order for assessment year 2013-14 was sustainable when notice was not served at the updated business address and service was effected by affixation in alleged breach of the prescribed mode of service.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment orders for assessment year 2012-13 were barred by limitation under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008.

Analysis: The assessment for assessment year 2012-13 had to be completed within the period prescribed under Section 29(6) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008. The impugned orders were passed on 31 March 2017, well after the expiry of the limitation period applicable on the facts found by the Court.

Conclusion: The assessment orders for assessment year 2012-13 were barred by limitation and were quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment order for assessment year 2013-14 was sustainable when notice was not served at the updated business address and service was effected by affixation in alleged breach of the prescribed mode of service.

Analysis: The record showed that the petitioner had informed the authorities of the change of address, yet notice was not served at the current address. The Court held that service by affixation at the old address, without compliance with the requirements of Rule 72 of the U.P. VAT Rules, was not valid service. The defect went to the root of the assessment proceedings and offended the requirement of due notice.

Conclusion: The assessment order for assessment year 2013-14 was unsustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned assessments were annulled, and the respondents were left free to proceed afresh in accordance with law by serving notice at the correct address.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment under the VAT regime cannot be sustained unless notice is served in the mode prescribed by the Rules and within the statutory limitation period; service at an obsolete address by affixation does not constitute valid notice where the updated address is known to the authority.

---