Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the asses -see under section 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short, "the HVAT Act") against the order dated May 21, 2014, annexure A4 passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal, (in short, "the Tribunal") in STA Nos. 351 -352 of 2013 -2014, claiming following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the contention of limitation raised by the appellant in the aforesaid case? (ii) Whether an assessment order can be said to be made or passed by simply retaining it on file without it being dispatched within the period of limitation? (iii) When admittedly the demand notice in form N. 4 and the assessment orders under both the Acts as well as the envelope carrying these documents bearing No. 857/A -Sing/2.7.2013 would it not mean that till July 2, 2013, the Assessing Authority was seized of the matter and the assessment order had not gone out of his hands? (iv) When admitted by the Department that the assessment orders had not been dispatched before July 2, 2013, can it be assumed that the Assessing Authority had lost his locus poenitentiae on the assessment orders? (v) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the instructions dated December 13, 2004 and March 14, 2006 issued by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana, are not binding on the assessing authority for not being issued under section 56(3) of the Act - A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. Ex parte best judgment assessment order dated July 2, 2013, annexure A1, was passed whereby demand of tax and interest of Rs. 8,33,398 and Rs. 11,55,047 were created under the HVAT as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, respectively. Along with the order, a demand notice in form VAT N. 4 was issued under the provisions of rule 39(1) of the Haryana VAT Rules, 2003 (in short, "the HVAT Rules"). The assessment order, the demand notice as well as the envelope dated July 2, 2013 were served on the appellant on July 13, 2013. The appellant filed CWP No. 16805 of 2013 in August 2013 contending that the assessment orders dispatched on July 2, 2013 were barred by limitation. Vide order dated August 5, 2013, annexure A2, the writ petition was disposed of by this court with a direction to exhaust the alternative remedy first. Further direction was given to the authorities to go into the question of wrong assumption of jurisdiction on the plea of limitation. As directed by this court, the appellant filed appeals before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Faridabad (JETC (A)) raising various grounds including the ground of limitation. Vide order dated November 18, 2013, annexure A3, the (JETC (A)) rejected the appeals of the appellant. On the issue of limitation, he held that there was no requirement to serve the order on the dealer before the expiry of limitation for framing the assessment. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant filed two appeals before the Tribunal. Vide order dated May 21, 2014, annexure A4, on the preliminary issue of limitation, the Tribunal did not find any merit in the submissions of the appellant. The appellant produced instructions dated December 13, 2004 and March 14, 2006 to the effect that assessment orders for 2003 -04 were not only to be made but served on the assessee within the period of three years. The Tribunal held that the said instructions were not binding on the Assessing Authority for not being issued under section 56(3) of the HVAT Act. Certified copy of the order dated May 21, 2014 was dispatched from the Tribunal on June 12, 2014. The appellant received the said copy on June 22, 2014. The Tribunal decided the preliminary issue of limitation and the appeals are yet to be decided on merit. There being no alternative remedy available, the appellant is before this court through the instant appeal.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order was passed by the Assessing Officer on March 29, 2013 which was issued to the appellant dealer on July 2, 2013. It was urged that date of issue of assessment order would constitute the passing of the assessment order and the same being after March 31, 2013 was beyond limitation. Reference was made to the following judgments: (i) Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Qimat Rai Gupta : [2007] 7 SCC 309; (ii) Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. M.M. Rubber and Co., Tamil Nadu : [1992] Supp (1) SCC 471; (iii) Qualimax Electronics P. Ltd. v. Union of India : [2010] 3 GSTR 194 pelhi) : [2010] 257 ELT 42 (Delhi); (iv) Government Wood Works v. State of Kerala : [1988] 69 STC 62 (Ker.); (v) Commissioner of Agricultural Income -tax v. Kappumalai Estate : [1988] 234 ITR 187 (Ker.) : [1998] 148 CTR 565 (Ker.); (vi) Commissioner of Income -tax v. Escorts Farms P. Ltd. : [1989] 180 ITR 280 (Delhi); (vii) Ambuja Cement Ltd. v. Union of India : [2011] 40 VST 64 (P & H) : [2009] 14 STR 3 (P & H). After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any merit in the appeal.
(3.) WHAT meaning is to be assigned to the word "made or passed" while framing assessment under section 15 of the HVAT Act, is the question agitated by the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal.;