TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1161
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l area. Subsequently, for the Assessment Year 2013-14 U.P. and Assessment Year 2013-14 Entry Tax , the Assessing Officer passed an ex parte order on 31.7.2015 creating liability of Rs. 20,37,183/- and Rs. 2,10,000/- towards entry tax. The said assessment orders dated 31.7.2015 were reopened on the application of the petitioner, however, again on 29.3.2016, assessment orders were passed against the petitioners, as no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners prior to the passing of the order dated 29.3.2016, the same were reopened under Section 32 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 by the order of the respondent no. 1 on 30.6.2016. After reopening the ex parte assessment order dated 30.6.2016, a show cause notice dated 28.9.2016 was served on the petitioner, calling upon the petitioner to appear before the respondent no. 1 along with entire books of accounts on 15.10.2016. In pursuance of the said show cause notice, the counsel for the petitioner appeared and made submissions, however, no orders were passed and, subsequently, on 13.9.2017, the petitioner was served with the assessment orders under Section 28(2) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act and Section 9 sub-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act. It was further stated that all the other assessment orders passed by the respondents, were computer generated, which is clear from the perusal of the earlier orders passed in the case of the petitioners themselves from the bottom whereof it is clear that a computer code is depicted at the bottom of the said orders whereas in the order impugned the said computer code is missing which clearly demonstrates that antedated order has been passed only to overcome the limitation. It was further averred in the writ petition that no explanation has been offered by the Department as to why the order of assessment, if made prior to the expiry of limitation, was not served on the petitioner within a reasonable time and was actually served after about 11 months which further demonstrates the mala fide on behalf of the Department and gives strength to the averments that antedated order has been passed. The petitioner further relied upon Circular No. 1424 dated 23.4.2017 issued by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax wherein provision has been made for serving of all the orders under digital signatures by e-mail which would deemed to be valid service. The respondents....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The civil appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs." The petitioner has fuhrer relied upon the judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Santhosh Builders vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (CT), Nellore and others, {2013} 57 VST 186 (AP). The petitioner has also relied upon a judgement of Allahabad High Court in the Case of Writ Tax No. 1054 of 2018 (M/s Ramky Infrastructure Limited vs. State of U.P. And two others) and other connected matters, decided on 1.11.2018 wherein this Court relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court and following the same, have allowed the writ petitions and have held that there is a legitimate presumption, if the order is served after long delay and after an expiry of the limitation that the orders were passed after the expiry of the limitation only to get over the statutory limitation. The present case is also clear on facts and there is no dispute with regard to the expiry of limitation for making the assessment i.e. 31.3.2017 under Section 29 sub-section 6 of the U.P. VAT Act and also the fact with that the same was served on 13.9.2017 after about 10 and half months of hearing of the case. Thus there being no dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owledgement- Where the process server delivers or tenders a copy of the notice, order or summons to the dealer or person concerned personally, or to an agent or other person on his behalf, he shall require the signature of the person to whom the copy is so delivered or tendered to an acknowledgement of service endorsed on the original notice, order or summon. (f) Procedure when dealer or person concerned refuses to accept or cannot be found- Where dealer or concerned person or his agent or such other person as aforesaid refuses to sign the acknowledgement, or where the process server, after using all due and reasonable diligence, cannot find the dealer or person concerned who is absent from his place of business or residence at the time when service is sought to be affected on him and there is no likelihood of his being found within a reasonable time and there is no agent empowered to accept service of the notice or order or summon on his behalf, nor any other person on whom service can be made, the process server shall affix a copy of the notice, order or summon on the outer door or some other conspicuous place in the house in which the dealer or person concerned ordinarily ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... article containing the notice, order or summon is received back by the authority with an endorsement purporting to have been made by a postal employee to the effect that the dealer or person concerned or his agent had refused to take delivery of the postal article containing the notice, order or summon, when tendered to him, the authority issuing the notice, order or summon shall declare that the notice, order or summon had been duly served on the dealer or person concerned: Provided that where the notice, order or summon was properly addressed, prepaid and duly sent by registered post, acknowledgement due, the declaration referred to this clause shall be made notwithstanding the fact that the acknowledgement having lost or misplaced, or for other reasons, has not been received by the authority within thirty days from the date of issue of the notice, order or summon. (j) Substituted service- (i) Where the authority is satisfied that there is reason to believe that the dealer or person concerned is keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service or that for any other reason the notice, order or summon cannot be served in the ordinary way the authority shall order t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on may be most conveniently so served, send it for service on the person concerned to the head of the officer in which he is employed together with a copy to be retained by the person concerned. (o) Duty of a person to whom notice, order or summon is delivered or sent for service- (i) Where a notice, order or summon is delivered or sent to any person for service under clause (m) or (n), such person shall be bound to serve it if possible, and to return it under his signature with the written acknowledgement of the dealer or person concerned and such signature shall be deemed to be evidence of service. (ii) Where for any reason service is impossible, the notice, order or summon shall be returned to the authority with a full statement of such reason and of the steps taken to procure service, and such statement shall be deemed to be evidence of nonservice. (p) Substitution of letter for notice, order or summon- (i) The authority may, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, substitute for a notice, order or summons a letter signed by the authority where the dealer or person concerned is, in the opinion of the authority, of a rank entitling him to such mark of consider....