https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257406 An unexplained twenty-four-month delay in service of an assessment order justified an adverse inference that the order was antedated and not genuinely made on the date it bore. Section 42(2) of the OVAT Act was treated as mandatory, requiring a dealer to be given at least thirty days to produce books of account and documents after notice under Section 42(1). Because the notice allowed a shorter period, the statutory requirement was breached and the audit assessment was held invalid. The consequential demand was quashed for want of valid notice and compliance with the prescribed minimum period. en-us Thu, 25 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Sep 2015 10:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257406 An unexplained twenty-four-month delay in service of an assessment order justified an adverse inference that the order was antedated and not genuinely made on the date it bore. Section 42(2) of the OVAT Act was treated as mandatory, requiring a dealer to be given at least thirty days to produce books of account and documents after notice under Section 42(1). Because the notice allowed a shorter period, the statutory requirement was breached and the audit assessment was held invalid. The consequential demand was quashed for want of valid notice and compliance with the prescribed minimum period. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 25 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257406