2024 (6) TMI 610

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....020 for financial year 2015-16. 4. It is petitioner's case, inter alia, that the impugned order is barred by limitation. It is also petitioner's case that respondent no. 3 has not followed the principles of natural justice by not giving a personal hearing despite petitioner seeking a personal hearing. 5. It is petitioner's case that sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the MVAT Act provides that no order of assessment under the said sub-section shall be made after the expiry of four years from the end of the year containing the period to which the return relates. 6. Mr. Mundhra submitted that the return related to 1st April 2015 to 31st March 2016 and, therefore, four years period would expire on 31st March 2020. Mr. Mundhra submitted that any order passed after 31st March 2020 shall be barred by limitation. In this case, according to petitioner, the order was made only on 23rd June 2020 and hence, is barred by limitation. 7. It was also submitted that even intimation dated 16th October 2018 reflected non application of mind by respondent no. 3 because petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why it should not be assessed under sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the MVA....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt of personal hearing, Ms. Chavan presumed because it was not so stated in the affidavit in reply, that in view of Covid period no personal hearing was given. But that makes us wonder why the Officer could not have given a virtual hearing. 13. Section 23 of the MVAT Act reads as under : "23. Assessment (1) ...... (2) Where the return in respect of any period is filed by a registered dealer by the prescribed date and if the Commissioner considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that return is correct and complete, and he thinks it necessary to require the presence of the dealer or the production of further documents, he shall serve on such dealer, a notice requiring him on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend and produce or cause to be produced all documents on which such dealer relies in support of his return, or to produce such documents or evidence as is specified in the notice. On the date specified in the notice, or as soon as may be thereafter, the Commissioner shall, after considering all the documents or evidence which may be produced, assess the amount of tax due from the dealer: Provided that, if a r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....urn in respect of financial year 2015-16 by the prescribed date. Sub-section (2) further states that on the date specified in the notice, or as soon as may be thereafter, the Commissioner shall, after considering all the documents or evidence which may be produced, assess the amount of tax due from the dealer. Second proviso, however, states that no order of assessment under this sub-section shall be made after the expiry of four years from the end of the year containing the period to which the return relates. 15. Short issue here is whether the impugned assessment order under sub-section (2) was made within a period of four years from the end of the year containing the period to which return relates. As correctly submitted by Mr. Mundhra the last day of limitation would be 31st March 2020. 16. Undisputedly, the digital signature on the impugned order served on petitioner has been put on 23rd June 2020 at 18:33:54. In the order filed with the reply, the date typed is 19th March 2020. The digital signature has been put by Sambhaji Kisan Yadav, same Officer who filed the affidavit in reply dated 14th November 2020. The Officer states in the reply that although the digital si....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed on 23.06.2020 at 14:15:15 hrs, and modified on 23.06.2020 at 18:33:54 hrs. This is in stark contrast to the submission of the Respondent No. 3 in the Affidavit in reply wherein it has been stated that the order was created on 19.03.2020, Screenshots of the file properties is annexed and marked as Exhibit C. 22. It is therefore submitted that the Purported Order dated 19.03.2020 is not a valid order of assessment as it is not available in the permanent electronic records maintained in the SAP System of the Respondent No. 3. Therefore, the contention of the Respondent No. 3 that the assessment order was issued on 19.03.2020 has no leg to stand. 23. It is further submitted that since the Impugned Order has been digitally signed on 23.06.2020 which is the beyond the period of four years as prescribed in the Section 23(2) of the MVAT Act, the said order is time barred and therefore without jurisdiction. The Petitioner further reiterates the submission made in paragraph 7 to paragraph 9 of this Rejoinder." 18. Therefore, petitioner has made a very categorical statement that the order available in SAP system also indicates that the order was signed digitally by res....