M/S Vishal Udyog vs. The State Of Assam And 3 Ors

Held

The Court held that the assessment orders for the Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 were liable to be set aside. The Court noted that while the statutory period for assessment under Section 39 of the Act ended on 31.03.2018 and 31.03.2019 respectively, the demand notices were issued in July and August 2019. Crucially, there was no explanation provided by the revenue for the delay of over two years in issuing these notices. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in M. Ramakishtaiah and Company, the Court presumed that the assessment orders, dated 21.12.2017, were not actually made on that date but could have been made after the expiry of the prescribed period. Consequently, the assessment orders for 2012-13 and 2013-14, along with the related demand notices, were set aside and quashed. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Vishal Udyog, a proprietorship concern registered under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, filed writ petitions challenging assessment orders and demand notices issued by the Superintendent of Taxes. For the financial year 2013-14, the petitioner initially paid Rs. 2,286/- after a scrutiny assessment. Subsequently, a notice under Section 36 of the Act was issued for audit assessment for periods 2012-13 to 2014-15. The petitioner appeared and produced documents. Later, a demand notice dated 27.12.2018, issued on 01.07.2019, demanded Rs. 22,599/- (Rs. 17,599/- balance tax and Rs. 5,000/- penalty) for 2013-14. The petitioner applied for a certified copy of the assessment order dated 21.12.2017, which was received on 20.09.2021. The assessment order did not allow Input Tax Credit. Similar issues arose for the financial year 2014-15.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment orders for the Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 are liable to be set aside on the ground that they were passed after the expiry of the prescribed period, as evidenced by the delay in communication? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the assessment orders were effectively made after the prescribed period, as indicated by the significant delay in their communication. They relied on Supreme Court judgments, particularly M. Ramakishtaiah and Company, which held that an unexplained delay in serving an order raises a presumption that it was made after the expiry of the statutory period and is therefore bad. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue regarding the delay in communication or the validity of the assessment orders on this ground.