High Court sets aside assessment orders due to procedural flaws; directs reassessment with proper consideration of objections.

The High Court intervened in the case due to perceived carelessness in passing assessment orders. The court found that the assessing officer did not properly consider objections raised by the petitioners and based the assessment solely on a proposal from enforcement officials. Consequently, the assessment orders were set aside, and the assessing officer was directed to reconsider the objections and provide valid reasons for their decision. The matters were remitted back to the assessing authority to re-frame the assessment in accordance with the law, with no costs imposed on the parties.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this judgment relate to the writ petitions filed seeking the relief of issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in his proceedings in TNGST/1240955/2003-04 and TNGST/1240955/2001-02, and to quash the assessment orders dated December 22, 2005 and September 28, 2004 respectively.

Judgment Details:

1. Assessment Orders Challenge:
The High Court noted that the orders of assessment were challenged in the writ petitions. While the court generally does not interfere with assessment orders due to the availability of an appellate remedy, in this case, the court decided to intervene due to the perceived carelessness and callousness in passing the assessment orders.

2. Consideration of Objections:
The assessing officer accepted that the petitioner had raised objections before a prerevision notice. However, the officer proceeded with the assessment without properly considering these objections. The court criticized the officer for basing the assessment solely on a proposal from enforcement officials, without independently evaluating the objections raised by the petitioner.

3. Setting Aside Assessment Orders:
The High Court found that the assessment orders were passed without due consideration of the objections raised by the petitioners. As a result, the court set aside the assessment orders and directed the assessing officer to reconsider each objection raised by the petitioners and provide valid reasons for their decision.

4. Remittal for Re-framing Assessment:
In both writ petitions, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were remitted back to the assessing authority to re-frame the assessment in accordance with the law. The court allowed the writ petitions without imposing any costs on the parties involved.

5. Conclusion:
The writ petitions were allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were remitted for re-framing the assessment. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as a result of the judgment.

---