Independent application of mind preserves reassessment orders despite superior policy guidance and alleged dictation.

A statutory reassessment is not invalid merely because the assessing authority took note of a superior office's circular or policy view on the legal position, provided it still applied its own mind to the facts of each case. Here, the Deputy Commissioner issued notices, considered the replies, examined the contracts, and recorded independent reasons before making the reassessment orders. That showed no unlawful dictation, bias, or surrender of quasi-judicial discretion. The challenge also failed because the bias objection was not raised in time and was treated as waived. The reassessment orders therefore remained valid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment orders were vitiated because the Deputy Commissioner acted under the dictation of the Board of Revenue and thereby surrendered his statutory discretion.

Analysis: The reassessment proceedings were initiated after a circular from the Board of Revenue drew the assessing authorities' attention to the legal position regarding works contracts and sales, but the circular did not compel a uniform result in individual cases. The Deputy Commissioner issued notices, received replies, examined the contracts, and recorded his own reasons before making the reassessment orders. The mere fact that a superior authority indicated a policy or legal view did not by itself establish bias or an unlawful surrender of discretion, since a quasi-judicial authority may take note of policy so long as it applies its own mind to the facts of each case. There was also no timely challenge on the ground of bias, and the objection was treated as waived.

Conclusion: The reassessment orders were not invalidated by bias, dictation, or abdication of discretion, and the contention against the Revenue failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory discretion is not vitiated merely because the authority follows a superior's policy or guidance, so long as it independently applies its mind and decides each case on its own merits; invalidity arises only where the authority mechanically acts under binding dictation or without genuine consideration.

---