TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (4) TMI 692
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch 20, 2009 passed for the assessment year 2006-07 (JVAT), order dated March 29, 2010 passed for the assessment year 2007-08 (JVAT), order dated nil for the assessment year 2008-09 (JVAT), order dated March 29, 2010 passed for the assessment year 2007-08 (CST) and order dated May 10, 2011 passed for the assessment year 2008-09 (CST). From the facts mentioned above, it is clear that all these orders were passed in different assessment cases. According to the petitioner, limitation for making the assessment order was up to March 31, 2009, March 31, 2010, March 31, 2011, March 31, 2010 and March 31, 2011, respectively. Demand notices in all these cases were served upon the petitioner on one date, i.e., on July 31, 2012 after delay of one year ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t order, thereafter, only those demand notices were issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court delivered in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Ramakishtaiah & Co. reported in [1994] 93 STC 406 (SC), wherein the honourable Supreme Court held that "in the absence of any explanation whatsoever, the court must presume that the order was not made on the date it purported to have been made and that it could have been made after the expiry of the period of four years prescribed for passing such an order in revision. . ." 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this court delivered in the case of Mecon Limited v. State of Jharkha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is duly entered in the despatch register, which is maintained regularly by the Revenue. It is submitted that because of lapse on the part of the peon in serving the notice, there cannot be the presumption of the order being antedated. 4. We considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case as well as we looked into the despatch register shown by the learned counsel for the Revenue. 5. At the outset, we may say that the despatch register shown to us is not a reliable document in view of the reasons that at several places, several blank space and numbers have been left obviously for the purpose of filling up later so as to insert despatch of the notices from back date. Undisputed facts are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....07 of despatch of demand notice on January 31, 2007 and that notice was not served upon the assessee, which is a public sector undertaking, up to October 25, 2009, i.e., for a period of 2½ years. In that fact-situation of that case, this court observed that the possibility of making the assessment order antedated cannot be ruled out. 6. We find some force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents that in all cases merely because of the delayed service of notice, presumption of making assessment order antedated cannot be drawn. So is the view already expressed by the honourable Supreme Court in the case of M. Ramakishtaiah & Co. [1994] 93 STC 406 (SC) and honourable Supreme Court in the said case held, that in abs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd fresh notices were issued which were served upon the petitioner-assessee and it is also not the case of the Revenue that the petitioner avoided the service. Plea of the respondents cannot be believed that, notices duly issued and entered into the despatch register were kept in the office for one year four months to three years four months and they were used for serving upon the petitioner after such a delay. 7. In view of the above reasons, the writ petitions are allowed and the orders under challenge, referred above, are set aside. However, in the facts of the case, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the assessing officer, who may proceed to make assessment after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner sh....