2018 (2) TMI 1478 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Finalization of assessment - authority of Assessing Officer to finalize assessment - Held that - after reply is given by the dealer, the Assessing Officer is bound to consider the reply and finalize the assessment based upon the facts and materials placed before him and he cannot close his eyes and state that the officials of the Enforcement Wing have given an adverse report against the petitioner and that therefore, he will blindly follow the report. If the Assessing Officer does so, he will be abdicating his statutory duty. A useful reference can be made to the decision in the case of Madras Granites Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CTO, Arisipalayam Circle, Salem 2002 (10) TMI 767 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , in which, the Hon ble Division Bench of this Court considered as to how the Assessing Officer should conduct himself and complete an assessment when there is a D3 proposal forwarded by the Assistant Commissioner (CT). The respondent are directed to finalize the assessments by considering the objections dated 30.6.2017 filed by the petitioner - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Direction to finalize assessments for specific years without undue influence.
2. Concerns regarding independence of Assessing Officer.
3. Application of statutory powers in assessment process.
4. Precedents on Assessing Officer's independence and statutory duties.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought a direction for finalizing assessments from 2010-11 to 2015-16 without being solely influenced by the Enforcement Wing's report. The Court noted the legal requirement for independent assessment by the Assessing Officer and expressed concern over potential undue influence faced by the respondent. Emphasizing the Assessing Officer's statutory powers, the Court highlighted the necessity for independent decision-making based on objections and materials presented, rather than blindly following reports. Citing precedents, the Court underscored the Assessing Officer's duty to act independently and complete assessments objectively.

In a referenced case, the Court discussed the Assessing Officer's role in completing assessments, particularly when directed by higher authorities. The Court emphasized that the Assessing Officer, as a quasi-judicial authority, should not be bound by instructions from superiors. The case highlighted instances where assessments based solely on higher authority directions were deemed legally unsustainable. The Court stressed the importance of the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind in completing assessments, ensuring compliance with legal standards.

Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petitions by directing the respondent to finalize assessments while considering the petitioner's objections and reviewing materials provided. The Court emphasized the need for a fair assessment process, including affording the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing. No costs were awarded, and related applications were closed, signaling the Court's resolution of the matter in favor of independent assessment practices and statutory compliance.