https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754003 The Bombay HC quashed an assessment order under MVAT Act s.23(2) for being time-barred. The revenue claimed the order was passed on 19th March 2020 within the four-year limitation period, but evidence showed it was actually digitally signed on 23rd June 2020, exceeding the statutory timeframe. The SAP system and MVAT portal confirmed only the June 2020 order existed. The court found the March 2020 order was non-existent, making the actual assessment order invalid for being passed beyond the limitation period. The petition was allowed and the assessment order was quashed. en-us Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Jun 2024 08:19:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754003 The Bombay HC quashed an assessment order under MVAT Act s.23(2) for being time-barred. The revenue claimed the order was passed on 19th March 2020 within the four-year limitation period, but evidence showed it was actually digitally signed on 23rd June 2020, exceeding the statutory timeframe. The SAP system and MVAT portal confirmed only the June 2020 order existed. The court found the March 2020 order was non-existent, making the actual assessment order invalid for being passed beyond the limitation period. The petition was allowed and the assessment order was quashed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754003