The petition challenges an assessment order and notice of demand issued by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax for the financial year 2015-16. The petitioner, a dealer registered under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (MVAT Act), argues that the order is barred by limitation and violates principles of natural justice due to the absence of a personal hearing. The court found that the assessment order was digitally signed and served on 23rd June 2020, beyond the four-year limitation period from the end of the relevant financial year, making the order invalid. Consequently, the court quashed the assessment order and notice of demand.

1. Preliminary Decision and Rule Issuance

• The court decided to dispose of the petition at the admission stage.
• Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Petitioner's Business and Registration

• The petitioner is engaged in trading IT and electronic equipment and providing services.
• Registered under the MVAT Act.

3. Impugned Order and Notice

• Order and notice of demand issued by Deputy Commissioner on 23rd June 2020 for FY 2015-16.

4. Grounds of the Petition

• The order is barred by limitation.
• No personal hearing was granted despite the request.

5. Limitation under Section 23(2) of MVAT Act

• No assessment order should be made after four years from the end of the year containing the period to which the return relates.

6. Petitioner's Argument on Limitation

• The return related to 1st April 2015 to 31st March 2016.
• The four-year period expired on 31st March 2020.
• The order dated 23rd June 2020 is barred by limitation.

7. Non-Application of Mind by Respondent

• Notice called for assessment under Section 23(3) despite the return being filed.
• Officer intended to ensure correctness of the return.

8. Denial of Personal Hearing

• Petitioner sought a personal hearing in response to intimation dated 16th October 2018.
• Hearing was not granted before the assessment order was passed.

9. Requirement under Section 23(5A) of MVAT Act

• Assessment order should be preceded by intimation not later than six months before the expiry of the limitation period.
• Assessment order without such intimation is bad in law.

10. Respondent's Opposition

• Sub-section (5A) not applicable as it pertains to revised return filings.
• Assessment order was allegedly passed on 19th March 2020 and digitally signed on 23rd June 2020 for service purposes.

11. Petitioner's Rejoinder and Inspection

• Inspection revealed the order was digitally signed on 23rd June 2020.
• No record of the order dated 19th March 2020 in the SAP system.
• Digital signature properties indicate creation and modification on 23rd June 2020.

12. Court's Findings

• The order available in the SAP system indicates the order was signed on 23rd June 2020.
• No valid order dated 19th March 2020 exists.
• Assessment order passed beyond the four-year limitation period is invalid.

13. Conclusion and Rule Made Absolute

• Impugned assessment order quashed and set aside.
• Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (c).