- (1.) By these writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged the orders passed under Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (JAVT in short) and order passed under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST in short), which are order dated 20th March, 2009 passed for the assessment year 200607 (JAVT), order dated 29th March, 2010 passed for the assessment year 2007-08 (JAVT), order dated nil for the assessment year 2008-09 (JAVT), order dated 29th March, 2010 passed for the assessment year 2007-08 (CST) and order dated 10.3.2011 passed for the assessment year 2008-09 (CST). From the facts metnioned above, it is clear that all these orders were passed in different assessment cases. According to the petitioner, limitation for making the assessment order was upto 31.3.2009, 31.3.2010, 31.3.2011, 31.3.2010 and 31.3.2011 respectively. Demand notices in all these cases were served upon the petitioner on one date, i.e. on 31st July, 2012 after delay of 1 year 4 months to 3 years 4 months from purported date of order. The petitioner's contention is that initially petitioner appeared in all these cases before the Assessing Officer, but according to the petitioner, when no next date was fixed by the Assessing Officer on that date, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner the assessment orders were passed. It is also the contention of the petitioner that in one of the cases, though the petitioner appeared on the last date wherein its attendence is marked but on that date no assessment order was passed in that cases and according to the petitioner, assessment orders were passed antedated so as to bring the assessment orders within the period of limitation, which already expired long back. The petitioner's contention is that if, the orders would have been passed on the purported date of order which has been shown in the ordersheet, then the demand notices would have been served within the reasonable period of time. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Biren Poddar, that, in all cases, it has been shown in the ordersheet that the notices were despatched in time, i.e. about 1 year 4 months to 3 years 4 months ago from the date of service of the notices upon the petitioner. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in fact, when these orders were passed antedated after lapsed of the period of limitation for making the assessment order, thereafter, only those demand notices were issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Suprme Court delivered in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M.Ramakishtaiah & Co., 1994 93 STC 406, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "in absence of any explanation whatsoever, the Court must presume that the order was not made on the date it purported to have been made and that it could have been made after the expiry of the period of four years prescribed for passing such an order in revision".
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court delivered in the case of M/s. Mecon Limited Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., 2012 3 JLJR 76, wherein this Court, after considering the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of M.Ramakishtaiah & Co., set aside the assessment orders, where demand notices were not served upon the assessee for a long period.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents, Shri Ajit Kumar and Shri.Rajesh Shankar, vehemently submitted that the petitioner was appearing before the concerned authority regularly and he had even filed attendence in writing, which fact cannot be denied. It may be true that some of the orders are exparte orders but because of the fact that the orders were passed exparte, it cannot be presumed that the orders were not passed on the date which is mentioned in the order itself. It is also submitted that in one of the cases, petitioner's attendence has been recorded and in that case also, petitioner's contention is that the order is antedated. It is submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.Ramakishtaiah & Co. held, that in absence of any explanation, the Court may presume that the orders were not made on the date it purported to have been made and it could have been made after expiry of the period of limitation. It is submitted that the issuance of the notice is proved from the endorsement on the ordersheet and entry in the despatch register of the notice on particular dates, which is duly entered in the Despatch Register, which is maintained regularly by the Revenue. It is submitted that because of lapse on the part of the peon in serving the notice, there cannot be the presumption of the order being antedated.;