Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessment order under Section 23(2) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 was barred by limitation on the ground that it was made after expiry of four years from the end of the year containing the period to which the return related.
Analysis: The return related to financial year 2015-16, so the limitation under the second proviso to Section 23(2) expired on 31 March 2020. The record showed that the impugned order served on the petitioner was digitally signed only on 23 June 2020. The explanation that an order dated 19 March 2020 existed in the office record was not accepted, because the SAP records and the properties of the soft copy indicated that the operative order was created and digitally signed in June 2020, and no convincing material was produced to establish a valid assessment order within time.
Conclusion: The assessment order was held to be time-barred and invalid, and the challenge succeeded.
Final Conclusion: The assessment and demand were quashed for breach of the statutory time limit, and the petition was allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: An assessment order under a statutory limitation provision is valid only if the operative order is actually made within the prescribed period; an asserted earlier date will not suffice where the contemporaneous record shows the order was created and digitally signed after limitation expired.