Assessment orders quashed due to time limit breach.

The court held that the assessment orders and demand notices were passed beyond the limitation period and were not validly communicated to the petitioner. As a result, the court set aside and quashed the orders, allowing the writ petition.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the orders of assessment were passed or signed by respondent No.3 on 20.03.2020 or on any date prior to 31.03.2020.
2. Whether an order of assessment is required to be communicated or kept on the file.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

I) Whether the orders of assessment were passed or signed by respondent No.3 on 20.03.2020 or on any date prior to 31.03.2020:

The petitioner sought quashing of assessment orders dated 20.03.2020 and consequential demand notices under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (MVAT Act) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act). The petitioner's case was that the assessment orders were not passed within the limitation period, which expired on 31.03.2020. The orders were allegedly passed manually on 20.03.2020, but were digitally signed and served via email on 23.07.2020, and uploaded on the official website only on 02.08.2020. The petitioner argued that this indicated the orders were not passed within the limitation period.

The respondents contended that the orders were indeed passed on 20.03.2020 and were served via email later due to the COVID-19 pandemic. They explained that the orders were uploaded on the SAP system on 14.07.2020, signed digitally, and then emailed to the petitioner. The respondents asserted that the orders were passed within the prescribed time limit and that the petitioner should have exhausted the appellate remedy provided under the MVAT Act.

The court examined the original record and noted discrepancies in the sequence of events and the handling of the assessment orders. It found that the orders were purportedly passed manually on 20.03.2020, but there was no clear evidence of manual service on the petitioner. The court also observed that the internal circular No.4A of 2020 dated 20.03.2020 required manual issuance and service of assessment orders, which was not followed. The court concluded that the impugned orders could not have been passed on 20.03.2020 or any date prior to 31.03.2020, and were therefore barred by limitation.

II) Whether an order of assessment is required to be communicated or kept on the file:

The court discussed the relevant legal provisions, including section 23(2) of the MVAT Act, which requires the Commissioner to serve notice to the dealer and provide an opportunity to be heard before making an assessment. The court also referred to rule 87 of the MVAT Rules, which outlines the methods of serving orders and notices, including by hand delivery or email.

The court emphasized that an assessment order must be communicated to the dealer for it to be effective. It cited precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer, which held that the making of an order must mean either actual or constructive communication to the party concerned. The court noted that mere writing of an order and keeping it on file would not constitute an order in the eye of law.

In this case, the court found that the assessment orders were not properly communicated to the petitioner as required by law. The internal circular No.4A of 2020 explicitly stated that manually passed orders should not be served electronically but delivered manually. The court concluded that the impugned orders were not validly communicated to the petitioner and thus were non est in the eye of law.

Conclusion:

The court held that the impugned assessment orders and related demand notices were passed beyond the limitation period and were not properly communicated to the petitioner. Consequently, the court set aside and quashed the impugned orders and allowed the writ petition.

---