Assessment orders can be invalidated if service methods do not comply with statutory requirements, particularly regarding limitation periods.

ORDER :

Suddala Chalapathi Rao, J.

Heard Mr.Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing Mr.Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, for the respondent.

2. The instant Writ Petition has been filed assailing the order passed Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2003-04, dated 28.03.2007. The writ petition was admitted for hearing as early as on 23.01.2008 and interim stay was also granted on a condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax within a period of four weeks.

3. The challenge to the assessment order is made primarily on the ground that the order is one which is barred by limitation and that the order is also one which, apparently is an ante dated order passed by the Assessing Officer. The petitioner establishment is one which is involved in the business of software exports and develops software and thereafter export them through the Software Technologies Park of India. It is contended that the petitioner falls under exemption category Section 5 (1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as the nature of business carried out by the petitioner i.e. business of software export. In due course of time, the petitioner’s business was taken over by another establishment namely: Convergys India Services Private Limited with effect from December, 2005 onwards. The respondent authorities issued a show-cause notice directing the petitioner to provide documents to substantiate the income received from software development from export mode to foreign countries so as to avail exemption. The show-cause notice is said to have been issued on 01.02.2007. As per the contents of the counter filed by the Department, the show-cause notice was also effectively served upon the petitioner. As the notice sent came back with an endorsement “addressee left”. The show-cause notice was also served by way of affixing on the petitioner’s last known address of residence, in terms of Rule 58 of ANDHRA PRADESH GENERAL SALES TAX RULES , 1957 (for short “the APGST Rules). Pursuant thereto, the assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer raising a demand of Rs.1,37,50,160/-. The impugned assessment order is dated 28.03.2007. The impugned order was finally served upon the petitioner on 20.12.2007. There was a large gap in between passing of the order and service of order on the petitioner. This according to the petitioner, prima facie, reflects the order to be an ante dated order. It was also the contention of the petitioner that apart from the said fact, the order being antedated, the respondent has also not adhered to the recognized mode of service of notice order under Rule 58 of the APGST Rules, which itself is also sufficient to draw an adverse inference against the respondent, as the impugned order being ante dated order.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under Rule 58 , the mode of service should be by registered post or by affixing the same on the addressee before a witness and in the instant case, the Department alleged to have sent the impugned order under certificate of posting, which is not a recognized mode of service and the said mode of service which has been deprecated by this High Court itself. The period of limitation in the Assessment order for the year 2003-04 under Section 14 (1) of the ANDHRA PRADESH GENERAL SALES TAX ACT , 1957 (for short “the APGST Act”) would commence from 01.04.2004 and ends by 31.03.2007 and though the impugned assessment order is dated 28.03.2007 and alleged to have been served by posting in certificate of posting and which in fact was actually served on 20.12.2007 and the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that same is ante dated order and is barred by limitation. According to the petitioner, just to show that the impugned order of assessment is one which has been passed within the limitation period, the Assessing Officer has put