9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 366 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxNon independent application of mind by AO - Proceeding made on the basis of the Audit Reports/Inspection Proposals proceeded from the Enforement Wing or from ISIC Authorities - HELD THAT - Assessing Officer has to independently consider the same, without being influenced by such proposals of the higher officials. Commissioner of State Tax, Chennai had issued Circular No.3 dated 18.01.2019, empowering the Assessing Authority to deviate from the proposals, without seeking for approval from the Enforcement Wing/ISIC Authorities. AO can independently deal with the assessment without being influenced by the proposals of the higher officials. See Madras Granites (P) Ltd. 2002 (10) TMI 767 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and Narasus Roller Flour Mills Vs. Commercial Tax Office, (Enforcement Wing), Sankagiri and another 2015 (4) TMI 361 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . All the impugned proceeding in the present Writ Petition, which proceeds on the basis of the proposals/reports of the Enforcement Wing/ISIC, is set aside and consequently, the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessee is granted liberty to file his objections with all supporting documents, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order
Issues involved:
1. Whether the Assessing Officer can solely rely on proposals from higher authorities without independent consideration? Detailed Analysis: The Writ Petition in question raised concerns regarding the Assessing Officer's reliance on Audit Reports/Inspection Proposals from the Enforcement Wing or ISIC Authorities without independent assessment. The petitioner contended that the Assessing Officer, as a Quasi Judicial Authority, failed to apply his mind and instead adopted the reports and proposals of higher authorities. This issue has been previously addressed by the court in various cases, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer must independently evaluate such reports and not be swayed by the proposals of superiors. The Court referenced past judgments such as Madras Granites (P) Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer and Narasus Roller Flour Mills vs. Commercial Tax Office, highlighting the principle that the Assessing Officer cannot be solely guided by proposals from Enforcement Wing Officers. Consequently, the Commissioner of State Tax, Chennai issued Circular No.3 dated 18.01.2019, empowering Assessing Authorities to deviate from such proposals without seeking approval from higher authorities. This Circular aimed to ensure that Assessing Officers could assess cases independently, without undue influence. In light of Circular No.3, the Court set aside the impugned proceedings based on proposals/reports from the Enforcement Wing/ISIC Authorities in the present Writ Petition. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer, granting the Assessee the liberty to file objections with supporting documents within 30 days. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a personal hearing to the Assessee/Representative, if necessary through Video Conferencing, and to conclude the assessment independently within 12 weeks from the receipt of objections. If objections were not received within 30 days, the Assessing Officer was instructed to commence assessment proceedings thereafter. The Court allowed the Writ Petition, with the direction for independent assessment by the Assessing Officer as per Circular No.3. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed without costs.
|
