9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctively dated 6.10.2015. 3.1 The petitioner is a registered dealer in edible oil and assessee on the files of the respondent herein. On 13.08.2013, an inspection was conducted by the Enforcement Wing Officials, during which time, the proprietor was not available. Based on the report of the Enforcement Wing Officials, impugned orders of assessment came to be passed. According to the petitioner, the only allegation levelled against the petitioner was that the petitioner should have produced the books of accounts before the Enforcement Wing Officials and not before the assessing authority. 3.2 According to the petitioner, immediately on receipt of the pre-assessment notices dated 11.02.2014, detailed replies along with month-war statement sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs of assessment. Hence, the impugned assessment orders are nothing but confirmation of VSI-3 proposal. Aggrieved over passing of the assessment orders, the petitioner is before this Court. 4.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside as being contrary to the principles laid down by this Court in the Judgment reported in (i) (2006) 146 STC 642 (Madras Granites (P) Limited vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Arisipalayam Circle, Salem and another). (ii) (2008) 16 VST 181 (SC) (Steel Authority of India Limited vs. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela I Circle and others). (iii) (2007) 9 VST 478 (Mad) (Amutha Metals vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Mannady (East) Assessment Circle, Chennai. (iv) (2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on produced records before the respondent/Assessing Authority, however, the respondent did not consider the same. 6. This Court considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7. For the assessment years in question, proposing tax liability, notices were issued on 11.02.2014, for which, the petitioner filed replies on 25.02.2014. The main allegation levelled against the petitioner by the respondent is that they did not produce any of the records and documents when the inspection was conducted by the Enforcement Wing Officials. According to the respondent, the inspection was conducted on 05.08.2013, on which date, no document was produced. The only reason given by the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner (CT), Enforcement, has directed the assessing officer to complete the assessment on the basis of the proposal in D-3 form, we find that the assessing officer, who is lower in rank in the hierarchy of officers, is bound by the said direction, and the records also show that the assessing officer has not independently applied his mind, but adopted the sales turnover as found in D-3 proposal and also levied the penalty in the manner indicated in D-3 proposal. It is well settled that the assessing officer is a quasi-judicial authority and in exercising his quasi judicial function of completing the assessment, he is not bound by the instructions or directions of the higher authorities. We find that in both the matters the assessing off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
