9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 501 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of proceedings - petitioner raised a ground that the Assessing Officer, who is a Quasi Judicial Authority, has not independently applied his mind while dealing with the impugned proceedings, but had adopted the reports and proposals of the Enforcement Wing/ISIC Authorities, who are their higher authorities - HELD THAT - Circular No.3 dated 18.01.2019 has empowered the Assessing Officers to henceforth independently deal with the assessment without being influenced by the proposals of the higher officials. Pursuant to the inspection conducted by the Enforcement Wing Officers, the petitioner company was assessed to the Best of Judgment for the Assessment Year 1994-95, as against which the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and by an order dated 25.07.2011, the Tribunal had remitted back the entire assessment to the Assessing Officer for pre-determination. While doing so, one of the direction to the Assessing Officer was to examine each and every transactions of the Form-F Declaration filed by the Assessee as provided under Section 6 A(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. However, in disregard of the Tribunal's order, the Assessing Officer had not gone into each and every transactions of the Form-F Declaration and on this ground also the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. The matter is remanded back to the first respondent herein for fresh consideration - Petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues involved:
1. Impugned proceeding based on Audit Reports/Inspection Proposals. 2. Assessing Officer not independently applying mind. 3. Assessing Officer solely guided by higher authorities' proposals. 4. Circular empowering Assessing Authority to deviate from proposals. 5. Assessment not in conformity with Tribunal's directions. Analysis: 1. The Writ Petition challenges the impugned proceeding based on Audit Reports/Inspection Proposals from the Enforcement Wing or ISIC Authorities. The petitioner argues that the Assessing Officer did not independently apply his mind but relied on higher authorities' reports. The Court has previously held that the Assessing Officer must not be solely guided by such proposals and must consider them independently. This view was supported by decisions in cases like Madras Granites (P) Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer and Narasus Roller Flour Mills vs. Commercial Tax Office. 2. The Court upholds the principle that the Assessing Officer should not be influenced by proposals of higher officials. A circular issued by the Commissioner of State Tax empowers Assessing Authorities to deviate from proposals without seeking approval from higher authorities. This circular, dated 18.01.2019, allows Assessing Officers to independently finalize assessments if they find the proposals not in conformity with the law or established principles without seeking approval. 3. The petitioner was assessed to the Best of Judgment for the Assessment Year 1994-95 following an inspection by Enforcement Wing Officers. The Tribunal remitted the assessment back to the Assessing Officer for pre-determination, directing a thorough examination of each transaction in the Form-F Declaration. However, the Assessing Officer failed to comply with the Tribunal's order, not examining each transaction as directed. This non-compliance with the Tribunal's order is considered an infirmity in the proceedings, warranting the setting aside of the assessment. 4. Consequently, the Court quashes the impugned proceedings and remands the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The Assessing Officer is instructed to adhere to the directions of the Tribunal, provide a personal hearing to the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders within twelve weeks. The Writ Petition is allowed, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed without costs.
|
