Special limitation for reassessment prevails over general limitation, and unexplained delayed service can indicate a time-barred order.

A special limitation period for reassessment and consequential orders under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act prevailed over the general limitation provisions, so the three-year period in Section 24-A applied rather than Section 14 or a later starting point under Section 19. On the facts, the assessment order was dated 31.03.2000 but served only on 17.07.2000, with no satisfactory explanation for the delay, supporting the inference that the order was not genuinely made on the stated date. The reassessment and consequential order were therefore treated as time-barred, and the limitation challenge based on the general provision was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment and consequential order were barred by limitation under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957; (ii) Whether the period of limitation could be computed under Section 14 instead of Section 24-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, or from the date of the consequential order under Section 19.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment and consequential order were barred by limitation under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Analysis: The assessment year 1996-97 required any reassessment, rectification, or revision to be completed within three years. The final assessment order was dated 31.03.2000, but it was served on the assessee only on 17.07.2000, with no plausible explanation for the delay. The unexplained delay in service supported the inference that the order was not genuinely made on the purported date and that the proceedings were hit by limitation.

Conclusion: The reassessment and consequential order were barred by limitation and the finding of the Tribunal was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the period of limitation could be computed under Section 14 instead of Section 24-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, or from the date of the consequential order under Section 19.

Analysis: Section 24-A operates as a non obstante provision and overrides Sections 14 and 20 where reassessment, rectification, or revision is made in consequence of an earlier order. The limitation therefore had to be computed under the three-year period in Section 24-A, not under the four-year period relied on by the Revenue under Section 14, and not from the later consequential order under Section 19. The Revenue also failed to explain the delayed service of the order, which reinforced the conclusion that the revision was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The limitation plea based on Section 14 and the alternative starting point from the consequential order were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The revision was devoid of merit, and the Tribunal's view on limitation and delayed service of the assessment order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute prescribes a special limitation period for reassessment or consequential orders, that special provision prevails over the general limitation provision, and an unexplained delay in service of the order may justify the inference that the order was not made on the date it purports to bear.

---