R.Anilkumar vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, R. Anilkumar, proprietor of M/s. Jayalekshmi Traders, challenged an assessment order (Ext.P2) under the CST Act and Rules for the period 2007-2008. The initial assessment was completed on 31.08.2009. An appeal led to a remand order (Ext. P1) by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) on 05.10.2020. The petitioner claims to have filed an objection to the pre-assessment notice but did not receive a final order. Revenue recovery proceedings prompted the petitioner to inquire, and on 20.04.2022, he was informed of the assessment order dated 31.03.2015 (Ext. P2). He obtained a copy of Ext.P2, receiving it on 24.05.2022.

Held

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's claim of non-service of the final assessment order (Ext. P2) and the revenue's submission that a notice was sent and a reply received, with an endorsement of despatch. However, the Court found it unclear whether the order was actually served on the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file an appeal against Ext. P2 before the duly constituted appellate authority. The Court directed that the date of Ext.P2 for the purpose of filing the appeal should be considered as 24.05.2022, the date the petitioner received a copy. If an appeal and stay petition were filed within one week, recovery proceedings would be stayed until the appellate authority decided the stay petition. The petitioner was explicitly barred from raising a limitation contention based on the 24.05.2022 service date, as the Court was convinced the order was issued on 31.03.2015.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was duly served with the assessment order dated 31.03.2015 (Ext. P2) passed by the Assessing Officer following the remand order. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that he was not served with a copy of the final order by the Assessing Officer after the remand and only came to know about Ext.P2 when revenue recovery proceedings were initiated. He received a copy of Ext.P2 on 24.05.2022. Revenue's contention: The learned Senior Government Pleader, on perusing the files, indicated that the petitioner was served with a notice of hearing by registered post with acknowledgement due, and the petitioner had submitted a reply. An endorsement suggested the order was despatched, but it was unclear if it was actually served. The Court noted that the order was issued on 31.03.2015.