TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 1074
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....notice dated 31.12.2021 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Excise and Taxation Officer-respondent No. 3 being without jurisdiction as there was no direction by the revisional authority to levy interest. For the assessment year 2010-2011, the petitioner had filed its quarterly returns in Form R-1. The assessment was framed by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 03.02.2014 (Annexure P-1) calculating an excess of Rs. 4,49,68,315/-. Thereafter, while exercising the revisional power, notice dated 13.09.2019 (Annexure P-2) for revising the assessment order dated 03.02.2014, was issued to the petitioner under Section 34 of the Haryana Vat Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act'). As per Section 34 of the Act, no order shall be revised after the expir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e his reply, wherein he had agitated the notice on two grounds; firstly, that the petitioner company had received the notice of revision after expiry of more than eight years from the close of the financial year, for which, it was proposed to revise the assessment and secondly, that the findings given in the notice were purely of facts and the respondents were required to produce some evidence or documents/details to justify their claim. As per Section 14 (2) and Section 29 (1) of the Act, the company was not liable to preserve the account books after expiry of eight years from the close of the year. In the written statement, it is further stated that the revisional order was passed within six years as per the amendment made by the Gover....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sel for the petitioner has referred to the information received by the petitioner through Right to Information Act, 2005 i.e. order sheet dated 31.05.2022 (Annexure P-8), stating that the representative of the petitioner-company namely, Mr. Neeraj Jain was present on 03.02.2020 and had reiterated that the company had destroyed the account books after completion of eight years from the closing of assessment year. On the same day, the revisional authority had passed the impugned order. Hence, the present petition. He has referred to the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Khetmal Parekh, (1994) 93 STC 406 (SC) on the proposition that if, a revisional order has been passed within four years and served up....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee only on 21.11.1973. The High Court had accepted the submission of the assessee that the order, which was served beyond the period of limitation, could not have been passed before expiry of limitation on 06.01.1973. The order could have been communicated within a reasonable period. The High Court further held that the respondent-assessee was not bound by that order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh and 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. This view has been thereafter, followed subsequently in Sanka Agencies vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad, (2005) 14....