TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... These observations are totally erroneous in the light of the settled legal principles as to how the Assessing Officer has to conduct himself. A report from the Enforcement Wing may be a starting point for issuance of a notice. But, the Assessing Officer, being a Statutory Authority, on issuance of notice proposing revision of assessment, is required to call for objections from the dealer and if the dealer places objections, then the Assessing Officer is duty bound to decide the matter on merits independently unbiased and uninfluenced by any other factor. Therefore, the observation made by the respondent in the impugned orders that he is duty bound to implement the audit report is a perverse observation and deserves to be set aside. Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first three writ petitions namely W.P.Nos.19007 to 19009 relate to the assessment years 2012-13 to 2014-15. The other four cases are almost identical excepting the fact that they relate to the assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15. 4. The impugned orders are being challenged on the ground of abdication of the powers of an Assessing Officer and on the principles of violation of natural justice and non application of mind. For the purpose of considering the correctness of the grounds raised by the petitioner, it may not be necessary for this Court to go into the merits of the assessment made on the petitioner and it would suffice to take note of the following facts: 5. For the assessment years 2012-13 to 2014-15, show cause notices were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r had not filed any objections to the proposal for revision of assessment. This statement is factually incorrect and the petitioner has been able to establish before this Court that the respondent had received the explanation along with enclosures on 23.10.2015. This is sufficient to hold that the impugned orders dated 28.4.2016 relevant to the assessment years 2012-13 to 2014-15, which were challenged in W.P.Nos.19007 to 19009 of 2016, are untenable and call for interference. 8. With regard to the other four writ petitions, which pertain to the assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15, the petitioner was issued pre-assessment notices dated 24.8.2015. These notices were pursuant to an inspection conducted by the Enforcement Wing Officials, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent proceeded to conclude the assessment proceedings and passed the orders dated 9.5.2016. 11. As observed earlier, this Court has not gone into the merits of the case, but is examining the correctness of the impugned orders as to whether they satisfy the settled legal principles pertaining to how an Assessing Authority has to proceed with the matter. In the orders of revision of assessment, the respondent has stated that the petitioner accepted the observations of the Enforcement Wing Officials in their statement. This is stated to be a wrong statement of fact, since, at the earliest point of time i.e. on 5.3.2015 itself, the petitioner submitted their objections requesting for correction in the statement recorded on 17.2.2015. 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... himself, thoroughly uninfluenced by any direction of superior officers and assess the tax payable on that basis....' We are completely in agreement that the assessment proceedings are quasi judicial in nature and therefore, the Assessing Authority has an independent duty to carefully scrutinize the materials for assessment and satisfy himself thoroughly, uninfluenced by any direction of superior officers and assess the tax payable on that basis. In the present case, as rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer simply taking into consideration the report of the Enforcement Wing has not applied its mind, but simply has been carried away by the report of the Enforcement Wing and has come to the conclusion. As stated e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to the petitioner, especially when the petitioner had sought for the same specifically in their explanation. 17. At this stage, it would be beneficial to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of SRC Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCT [(2010) 33 VST 333] wherein it was held as follows : ...but in cases where dealer seeks for a personal hearing, such dealer should be afforded the same in all cases where the Commissioner proposes to record a finding, which is adverse to the dealer and such adverse order to the assessee can only be made after giving the assessee a hearing. 18. This being the settled legal position, the respondent ought to have granted an opportunity of personal hearing. While p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
