NON-SERVICE OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS INCONSEQUENTIAL IF THE ASSESSEE HAD KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THEM OTHERWISE: SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court in the case Commercial Tax Officer Versus Neeraja Pipes Pvt. Ltd observed and has attached the orders which is issued by the revenue for tax arrears, the same will not be vitiated merely because the assessment orders were not being served on the assesse or otherwise if the assessee had got knowledge about the order of assessment. In the present case, the Supreme Court restored the attachment orders being issued under the APGST Act and Telangana VAT Act, wherein the court set aside by the Telangana High Court on the ground that the assessment orders were not being served on the assessee.

The bench comprising of Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta in the case observed that the order of High Court, would have warranted interference, under normal circumstances, thus, this being the peculiar facts of the case which forced the Court to have a second look.

In the present case, the wit petition has been moved by the revenue when the Canara Bank attached the assets of the assessee. Thus, the writ petition has been filed by revenue wherein claiming prior charge over the assets. In the writ petition filed, the assessment orders of the relevant years were also being produced. Therefore, the assesee who being a respondent in the writ petition filed and it has been contested for filing of a writ petition. The copy of assessment order has been obtained by the assessee, even if it can be assumed that they were not served on it in the manner prescribed by the rules.

The bench in the case observed and has also relied on the decision in the case Amina Bi Kaskar (D) by

LRS. v. Union of India And Ors, wherein the court held that if the appellants had the knowledge of the order passed against them, then the so-called irregularity in the manner wherein it effected the service of the order being on them, etc. was of no such consequence ad the same cannot be termed as illegal.

In this regard, the court observed that the assessee also did not dispute that the copies of assessment orders has not been received. Therefore, the court did not seek copies of the assessment orders, in the representations made which are being addressed to the revenue after the second attachment order was also issued by the court, on 20.02.2018. Thus, it has been contended by the assessee that the attachment orders were unenforceable and because of the assessment orders were not served on it, are being untenable.