9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 940X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his / her mind independently ie., independent of the proposal of the enforcement wing. Without embarking upon the exercise of ascertaining whether the first respondent has applied his / her mind independent of the proposal given by the enforcement wing, suffice to say that nothing has been recorded in the impugned assessment orders to show that there is independent application of mind qua proposal given by enforcement wing. Impugned order are set aside on the sole ground of not making assessment independent of the proposal of the enforcement wing / not giving reasons for accepting enforcement wing proposal - the first respondent shall redo the assessments for all the seven years in accordance with law - petition disposed off. - W.P.Nos.12715, 12719, 12723, 12725, 12727, 12731 & 12733 of 2019 And W.M.P.Nos.12942,12949,12946,12947,12944,12954 & 12950 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 12-6-2019 - Mr. Justice M. Sundar For the Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajkumar For the Respondents : Ms.G.Dhanamadhiri Government Advocate ORDER This common order will govern the aforesaid seven writ petitions. In other words, this common order w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order are 2008-09 to 2014-15. d. There was a surprise inspection of writ petitioner's place of business by the enforcement wing officials of the respondent department on 25.09.2014. Certain records were taken away from the writ petitioner's shop and the enforcement wing made certain proposals for assessment and levy of tax under TNVAT Act qua the writ petitioner, inter alia on the ground of suppression of certain purchase details. To be noted, this proposal is also predicated on probable omission. e. Based on the aforesaid proposal of the enforcement wing, the first respondent issued notice to the writ petitioner assessee and called upon the writ petitioner assessee to produce documents and other evidence that may be necessary to decide the matter. f. Admittedly the writ petitioner did not avail of this opportunity. g. Thereafter, the first respondent passed seven different orders of assessment of all dated 31.12.2018. The instant writ petitions have been filed assailing the aforesaid seven separate assessment orders dated 31.12.2018. 7. The primary and pivotal submission made by learned counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly apply his / her mind and make an assessments. 12. The most relevant paragraphs, wherein this aspect of the matter was articulated in Narasus Roller Flour Mills -Vs- The Commercial Tax Officer reported in (2015) 81 VST 560 (Mad) , reads as follows : 5.After considering the entire facts placed before this Court, this Court is fully convinced that the Assessing Officer has clearly abdicated his quasi-judicial power. The Honourable Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Madras Granites Pvt.Ltd. Vs.Commercial Tax Officer, Arisipalayam Circle, Salem and another reported in (2006) 164 STC 642, considered the question as to the manner in which the Assessing Officer has to proceed with the assessment even though reopening of the assessment was pursuant to a proposal submitted in Form D3 by the Inspecting Officer. The Honourable Division Bench pointed out 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, the same are not sustainable in law. 6.The above decision of the Honoura ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, it follows as an inevitable sequitur that there is nothing in the impugned orders to say that the first respondent has applied his / her mind independently ie., independent of the proposal of the enforcement wing. Without embarking upon the exercise of ascertaining whether the first respondent has applied his / her mind independent of the proposal given by the enforcement wing, suffice to say that nothing has been recorded in the impugned assessment orders to show that there is independent application of mind qua proposal given by enforcement wing. 16. Therefore, the question as to whether the writ petitioner assessee, who has chosen not to file objections and chosen not to avail the opportunity to object given by the assessing authority, will be entitled to press into service the Narasu's principle, is left open. 17. Leaving the above question open, in the light of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and in the light of the cryptic impugned orders, the details of which have been alluded to supra, this Court passes the following order : (a) The seven impugned orders bearing Ref.Nos.113/2016/2008-09, 113/2016/2009-10, N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
