TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1495
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom 1.4.2005 to 30.11.2006 on the ground that the said order is barred by limitation and has been passed without complying with the statutory requirement of Section 42 (2) of the OVAT Act and is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. The petitioner's case in nutshell is that it is a proprietorship concern dealing with gunny bags on wholesale basis and it is registered under the OVAT Act. It has filed its return for the tax period from 1.4.2005 to 30.11.2006. Opposite party no. 1-Sales Tax Officer, who is the head of the Audit Team, after conducting audit at the business premises of the petitioner for the aforesaid tax period submitted the Audit Visit Report to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax on 12.12.2006 for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fter expiry of the period of one year from the date of receipt of the Audit Visit Report. The Audit Visit Report having been submitted on 12.12.2006, the last date for completion of the audit assessment under Section 42 of the OVAT Act expired on 11.06.2007. The assessment order under Annexure-1 having been passed on 18.6.2008, it is clearly barred by limitation prescribed under sub-section (6) of Section 42 of the OVAT Act. Hence, the said order of assessment is liable to be quashed. Mr. Jena further contended that the notice for audit assessment under Section 42 of the OVAT Act was issued on 23.8.2007 enclosing the Audit Visit Report submitted to the Assessing Authority on 12.12.2006, which is much after expiry of the period of limitat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ince the impugned order of assessment was served within four months, it cannot be said that there is an unreasonable delay. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. -v- State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (1997) 104 STC 497. 5. On the rival contentions of the parties, the following questions arise for consideration by this Court. (i) Whether the impugned order of assessment dated 18.6.2008 under Annexure-1 has been passed within the period of limitation? (ii) Whether the impugned order of assessment dated 18.6.2008 under Annexure-1 has been antedated and passed after expiry of the period ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ub-section (6) of Section 42 of the OVAT Act was not obtained prior to or after passing of the assessment order on 18.06.2008. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order of assessment passed under Annexure-1 is bad in law. 8. To deal with the Question No. (ii), it may be relevant to note that the order of assessment was purportedly passed on 18.6.2008 and was communicated to the petitioner on 24.10.2008. Thus, there is a delay of more than four months in communicating the order of assessment to the petitioner. Explanation of the opposite party-Department is that delay was caused due to clerical mistake and the said delay is not inordinate. 9. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Sanka Agencies -v- Commissioner of Commer....