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. 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 date as 28.03.2003 to be the date of which the assessment order was passed. However, there is no substantial cogent material available with the Department to show that the order was one which was passed on 28.03.2007. 5. However, there is no substantial cogent material available with the Department to show that the order was one which was passed on 28.03.2007. 5. Per contra, though counter-affidavit is not filed in the instant case, learned Special Government Pleader for the Department contends that there was a total non-cooperation from the petitioner’s side, inasmuch as, even when the show cause notice was issued on 01.02.2007, the Department found it difficult in serving the same. The registered notice sent came back with an endorsement “addressee left”. The Department personally made an effort of serving the notice through process server of the Department, but, the process server found the petitioner not being available at the given business address and lastly, the show-cause notice was served by way of affixture at the petitioner’s last known address of residence. All of which, it is stated, would show that the requirement under Rule 58 of the APGST Rules was strictly adhered to and in spite of these, the petitioner choose not to defend himself and not to appear before the authorities and has neither availed the opportunity to put forth his defence nor gave his explanation to the contents of the show-cause notice and in the process, the Assessing Officer was left with no other option, but, to pass the order dated 28.03.2007, which is well within the period of limitation and as it was posted under certificate of posting and served upon the petitioner on 20.12.2007 and thus, contended that the impugned assessment order is not antedated and inasmuch the order is passed within limitation. 6. Having heard the contentions put-forth on either sides and a perusal of the record, evidently there is no dispute so far as the period of limitation for the assessment to be made for a particular assessment year is three years from the period of assessment i.e. for the assessment year 2003-04, the period of limitation would be up to 31.03.2007. The show-cause notice issued by the Department appears to be one which was sent on 01.02.2007. 7. As a matter of record as the service of orders was made through certificate of posting and actually served to the assessee on 20.12.2007. The show-cause notice issued by the Department appears to be one which was sent on 01.02.2007. 7. As a matter of record as the service of orders was made through certificate of posting and actually served to the assessee on 20.12.2007. Leaving aside the discrepancies, so far as the date of order and dispatch of order for a moment, we proceed to decide whether the mode adopted by the Department for sending the order of assessment under certificate of positing be a recognized mode of service or not. It would be relevant to take note of Rule 58-A of the APGST Rules, which for ready reference reproduced hereunder: “ Section 58 : The service on a dealer of any notice, summons, order or proceedings under the Act or under these rules may be effected in any of the following ways, namely. a) by giving or tendering it to such dealer or his manager or agent; or b) if such dealer or his manager or agent is not found by leaving it at his last known place of business or residence or by giving or tendering it to adult member of his family; or c) if the address of such dealer is known to the assessing authority, by sending it to him by registered post; or (and if it is returned unserved, it shall be put on notice board of the office of the assessing authority or the notice board in the office of the local Chamber of Commerce or Traders Association, and it shall be deemed that the said notice or summons or proceedings are served on the dealer and action shall be taken in pursuance thereof accordingly.) d) if any or all of the modes aforesaid is not practicable, by affixing it in some conspicuous place at his last known place of business or residence.” 8. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision by itself would reflect that the service of notice by certificate of posting is not one which is prescribed in the statute as the way of recognized mode of service. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision by itself would reflect that the service of notice by certificate of posting is not one which is prescribed in the statute as the way of recognized mode of service. It would also be relevant at this juncture to refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this High Court in Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Industries v. Commercial Tax Officer, Vanasthalipuram Circle, Hyderabad, (2011) 46 VST 349 :2011 SCC OnLine AP 1081 , wherein, in para No.8 of the judgment, this Court has referred to the service of notice by way of “certificate of posting” held as under: “8 …… .Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that authorities resort to the "certificate of posting" route for service of notices only to avoid producing proof of service. That this method of service is capable of abuse is not in dispute. "Certificate of posting" is not one of the prescribed modes of service of notices under rule 64 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules. The bona fides of the first respondent, in initially contending that the show-cause notice was sent by RPAD and then taking a "U" turn to submit, in the additional counter-affidavit, that the show- cause notice was sent by certificate of posting, is suspect. We are, prima facie, of the view that the several contradictions, in the counter-affidavit vis-a-vis the additional counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent, reflect her endeavour to mislead this court, and to avoid being proceeded against for perjury. We had therefore, by order dated January 25, 2011, directed appearance of the first respondent, and for production of the file relating to the cancellation order. However the relevant records, including the despatch register, were not produced.” 9. From the aforesaid judicial pronouncement itself it would apparently evident that the service of notice by referring to certificate of posting by the Department is not one, which is acceptable nor it has been considered as recognized rather the High Court has deprecated such a practice being adopted. However the relevant records, including the despatch register, were not produced.” 9. From the aforesaid judicial pronouncement itself it would apparently evident that the service of notice by referring to certificate of posting by the Department is not one, which is acceptable nor it has been considered as recognized rather the High Court has deprecated such a practice being adopted. In the teeth of said finding by the Division Bench of this High Court and in the absence of materials to show that efforts have been made by the Department in serving the impugned order dated 28.03.2007 primarily within reasonable period of time, strong inference has to be drawn against the Department in viewing the impugned order to be the one which is an ante dated order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. M.Ramakishtaiah & Co., (1994) 93 STC 406 :1994 SCC OnLine SC 3 dealing with the aspect of inordinate delay on the part of the Department in serving the order upon the assessee has held as under: “ We are of the opinion that the theory evolved by the High Court may not be really called for in the circumstances of the case. We are of the opinion that this appeal has to be dismissed on the ground urged by the assessee himself. As stated above, the order of the Deputy Commissioner is said to have been made on January 6, 1973, but it was served upon the assessee on November, 21,1973, i.e., precisely 10 ½ months later. There is no explanation from the Deputy Commissioner why it was so delayed. If there had been a proper explanation, it would have been a different matter. But, in the absence of any explanation whatsoever, we must presume that the order was not made on the date it purports to have been made. It could have been made after the expiry of the prescribed four years period. The civil appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.” 10. Another reason what forces this Bench to draw inference against the Department is the effort at the first instance made by the Department in serving the show-cause notice upon the petitioner/assessee gives a clear indication of all the efforts made by them, and procedure, all of which was as envisaged under Rule 58 of the APGST Rules which again was followed. reproduced in the foremost paragraphs. reproduced in the foremost paragraphs. However, when it comes to serving of the assessment order upon the petitioner is concerned, none of the mode which they had adopted in the course of serving the show-cause notice was adopted, rather they took altogether a different mode which is totally alien to the procedure that is prescribed under Rule 58. This action as has been suggested earlier compels the Bench to draw an adverse inference of the order dated 28.03.2007 being ante dated order for the simple reason that the actual service of notice admittedly has been made on 20.12.2007 which is said to be by certificate of posting, which is not the proper mode of service as envisaged in Rule 58 of APGST Rules and thus, in our considered opinion, the impugned order is ante dated and the same is barred by limitation. 11. Having held the impugned order to be antedated and barred by limitation, learned counsel for the State had also taken a preliminary objection of petitioner though has the remedy of appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority has filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As has been discussed in the initial paragraphs of this order, the assessment order is one which is dated 28.03.2007 and the order was served upon the petitioner admittedly in December, 2007. The writ petition was immediately filed before the High Court and the High Court admitted the petition on 23.01.2008 itself. As such, there was no much time lost by the petitioner in availing the writ remedy and which was accepted by the High Court and also granted interim protection. Now after 17 years of writ petition being pending before this Court, we are of the firm view at this juncture, the objection of the learned Assistant Government Pleader of relegating the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal would not be proper, legal and justifiable and also the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. , (2020) 19 SCC 681 , has categorically held that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution is available in the cases where the point of limitation or jurisdiction is raised and therefore, the said objection stands overruled. 12. 12. With the aforesaid findings as to the facts and circumstances of the case and jurisdictional precedents narrated above, we are inclined to allow the writ petition in holding that the order of assessment is bad in law and is one which is otherwise barred by limitation and consequently the impugned assessment order dated 28.03.2007 is quashed and set aside. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.