Assessment orders must be validly made within limitation and communicated to the assessee to become effective in law.

Assessment orders under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act had to be validly passed within limitation and in accordance with the applicable manual procedure, including signing, sealing and manual service where required. The record showed inconsistencies in the claimed date of passing and the later electronic circulation of scanned or digitally signed copies, which did not satisfy the governing procedure. The article also states that an assessment order is not legally effective merely because it is written or retained on the file; it must be communicated, directly or constructively, to the assessee to take effect for limitation and appeal purposes.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment orders were passed or signed on 20.03.2020 or on any date prior to 31.03.2020; (ii) Whether an order of assessment is required to be communicated or kept on the file.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment orders were passed or signed on 20.03.2020 or on any date prior to 31.03.2020.

Analysis: The assessment under section 23(2) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 for the period 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016 had to be completed within the prescribed limitation. The record and surrounding circumstances showed inconsistencies between the alleged manual passing of the orders on 20.03.2020, the later email service, the system upload date and the absence of a clear service endorsement. The internal circular governing manual assessments required manual signing, sealing and manual service, and prohibited electronic service of such manually passed orders. The explanation offered for emailing scanned and digitally signed copies was inconsistent with that procedure and did not satisfactorily explain the chronology. On the material before it, the Court concluded that the orders could not have been validly passed on 20.03.2020 or before 31.03.2020.

Conclusion: The assessment orders were not shown to have been passed within limitation and were therefore without jurisdiction and non est in law, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether an order of assessment is required to be communicated or kept on the file.

Analysis: The Court held that an assessment order is not complete merely by being written or retained in the file. For legal efficacy and for the purpose of limitation and appeal, it must be made known to the affected party, either directly or constructively. Mere existence of an unsigned or uncommunicated order in the departmental record would not suffice. This principle also applied to the present case where the mode and date of communication were central to the validity of the assessments.

Conclusion: An assessment order must be communicated to the assessee to become effective in law, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned assessment orders and the consequential demand notices were set aside and quashed, and the writ petition was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment order affecting civil consequences must be validly made within limitation and communicated to the assessee in the manner required by law; an order not so made or communicated is ineffective and unenforceable.

---