TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether the notice issued by Assessing officers are correct and will bound the petitioner keeping in view the fact that Assessing Officer did not apply his mind while issuing the pre-revision notices and mechanically issued notices by verbatim repeating the allegations made against the petitioner by the Enforcement Wing Officials? Held that: - the decision in the case of Madras Granites P. Ltd., Vs. CTO, Arisipalayam Circle[2002 (10) TMI 767 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] is relied upon. It was held that by merely endorsing the findings of the Inspecting Authorities and implementing in-toto, the Assessment Proceedings which were issued without independent thinking by the authority, are condemnable. The notice issued by the Assessing Officers da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The place of business of the petitioner was inspected by the Enforcement Wing Officials of the Commercial Taxes Department on 18.01.2016, and certain defects were noticed and it appears that the Enforcement Wing Officials had prepared a report and forwarded the same to the first respondent-Assessing Officer, to revise the assessments for the years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively. During the course of investigation by the Enforcement Wing Officials, a statement was recorded from the Proprietor of the petitioner. The allegation made against the petitioner was that on verification of the local sales of cloth and inter-State sale of garments with stitching charges paid, it is foun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent. Be that as it may, the first respondent issued notices proposing to revise the assessments already completed and from a perusal of the notices, it is evidently clear that it is a verbatim repetition of the allegation made by the Enforcement Wing Officials against the petitioner, which has been recorded in the statement given by the petitioner to the Enforcement Wing Officials on 25.01.2016. 5. Thus, it is prima-facie clear that the Assessing Officer did not apply his mind while issuing the pre-revision notices and mechanically issued notices by verbatim repeating the allegations made against the petitioner by the Enforcement Wing Officials. On receipt of the notices, the petitioner submitted their objections, dated 25.05.2016 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned assessment orders, in these cases, are a classical example of how an Assessing Officer should not function in spite of repeated decisions of this Court, pointing out the role of the Assessing Officer and it appears that the first respondent has no inclination to follow the Rule of Law. The sanctity of the proposal by the Enforcement Wing Officials, which was earlier called as D-3 proposal, is greatly in question. The proposal admittedly is an inter-departmental Communication. It appears that the Department follows a procedure that if the Assessing Officer wishes to defer with such D-3 proposal, he is entitled to submit his objections, which will be once again placed before the Enforcement Wing Officials, who are entitled to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 officer has acted on the basis of the directions of his higher authority in completing the assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
