2018 (9) TMI 238

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd that she is required to decide the case based on the reply filed by the dealer and the documents that may be produced. Therefore, the respondent should not be bound over by any direction issued by the Joint Commissioner and should be allowed to take a decision independently in the matter. The matters are remanded to the respondent for a fresh consideration - petition allowed by way of remand.
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM For the Petitioner : Mr. S. Kanmani Annamalai For the Respondent : Mrs.G.Dhana Madhri, GA COMMON ORDER Mrs.G.Dhana Madhri, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondent. Heard both. In the light of the glaring errors, which are apparent on the face of the impugned orders, the writ peti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ior can dictate terms as to the manner, in which, the Assessing Officer has to complete the assessment. Earliest of the decisions on this point is the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Madras Granites Vs. CTO [reported in (2006) 146 STC 642] wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench held as follows : Therefore, when the higher officer, viz., the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Enforcement, has directed the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment on 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sing Officer was bound over and prevented from exercising his statutory power by the direction issued by his superior officer and the direction issued to the respondent to complete the assessment in a particular manner is strictly in conflict with the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Madras Granites Private Limited Vs. CTO, Arisipalayam Assessment Circle, Salem [reported in (2006) 146 STC 642]. Therefore, even assuming that any such direction is given, it is not binding on the Assessing Officer and he is required to decide the issue uninfluenced by any such direction based on the documents produced by the dealer. 8. The above referred to decisions have been quoted in this order in order to strengthen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X