TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 610
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, 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 MVAT Act whereas sub-section (3) applies only to cases where a regist....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 registered dealer fails to comply with the terms of any notice issued under this sub-section, the Commissioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 signature was put on copy of the order to be served on petitioner on 23rd June 2020, same cannot be construed as date of passing order which in fact was passed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 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 respondent no. 3 only on 23rd June 2020 and SAP system does not show any order dated 19th March 2020. There is no response filed to the said rejoinder by the said Sambhaji Kisan Yadav. The said Sambhaj....