9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1874X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority has rejected the same without giving any reason as to why and how the same are rejected. The objections of the writ petitioner dealer have hardly been considered though this is a case of mismatch. What is of utmost importance is proposals of the Enforcement Wing have been confirmed without an independent assessment. The impugned assessment order is set aside - respondent is directed to assess afresh, after giving a personal hearing to the petitioner s duly authorized representative and after giving opportunity to the petitioner to file requisite records and documents - petition allowed by way of remand. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were made by Enforcement Wing resulting in demand of tax for the aforesaid assessment year. 5. To be noted, in the instant writ petition, we are concerned with assessment year 2014-2015. 6. Based on the proposals given by the Enforcement Wing, respondent issued revisional notice dated 24.10.2017 and the writ petitioner responded to the revisional notice vide a letter dated 10.11.2017 and requested for two months time to submit their reply. 7. Thereafter the respondent responded vide further communication dated 13.11.2017 and time was granted to the writ petitioner till 29.12.2017. 8. Notwithstanding the above mentioned undisputed position, respondent passed an assessment order. The assessment order passed by the respondent is called in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly convinced that the assessing officer has clearly abdicated his quasijudicial power. The honourable Division Bench of this court, in the case of Madras Granites (P) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Arisipalayam Circle, Salem reported in [2006] 146 STC 642 (Mad), 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 ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hstanding the above obtaining position, a perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Assessing authority i.e., sole respondent has merely gone by the proposal given by the Enforcement Wing of the department. With regard to the detailed objections of the writ petitioner, in a cryptic manner, the Assessing authority has rejected the same without giving any reason as to why and how the same are rejected. The objections of the writ petitioner dealer have hardly been considered though this is a case of mismatch. What is of utmost importance is proposals of the Enforcement Wing have been confirmed without an independent assessment. This is set out in the impugned order in the paragraph preceding the operative portion, which reads as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
