Court sets aside TNVAT assessment orders for bias, orders fresh assessment.

The Court allowed the Writ Petitions challenging revised assessment orders under the TNVAT Act for assessment years 2007-2008 to 2011-2012. It found that the assessing authority did not exercise independent judgment and was influenced by superior officers, rendering the orders vitiated. Emphasizing the importance of unbiased decision-making, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the cases for fresh assessment by the 1st respondent. The petitioner was directed to deposit the tax amount in installments as specified, and no costs were imposed.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging revised assessment orders under TNVAT Act for assessment years 2007-2008 to 2011-2012 based on directions from respondents. Allegation of lack of independent decision-making by the assessing authority. Petitioner's contention of orders being influenced by superior officers.

Analysis:

1. Challenging Revised Assessment Orders:
The Writ Petitions were filed to challenge the revised assessment orders issued to the petitioner for assessment years 2007-2008 to 2011-2012 under the TNVAT Act. The petitioner, engaged in film processing and distribution, had purchased chemicals for business purposes during the said assessment years. The dispute arose when the Enforcement Wing of the Commercial Taxes Department, based on instructions from respondents, proposed levying tax on chemicals used by the petitioner. The petitioner objected to these proposals, leading to a series of notices and objections filed by both parties.

2. Allegation of Lack of Independent Decision-Making:
The main contention raised by the petitioner was that the assessing authority did not apply independent judgment while passing the revised assessment orders. It was argued that the orders were influenced by the directions of the 2nd respondent, thus rendering them vitiated. Citing precedents, the petitioner emphasized the importance of the assessing authority's independent duty to scrutinize materials for assessment without being influenced by superior officers. The petitioner sought a remand of the cases for fresh orders, highlighting the need for an unbiased decision-making process.

3. Petitioner's Allegation of Influence by Superior Officers:
The petitioner further argued that the 1st respondent had followed the order of the 2nd respondent in passing the impugned assessment orders. The petitioner offered to deposit 25% of the demanded tax amount in each case to demonstrate good faith. However, the assessing authority contended that the orders were not solely based on the directions of the 2nd respondent and that the petitioner's voluntary deposit would be taken into consideration.

4. Judicial Precedents and Decision:
Referring to relevant judicial precedents emphasizing the quasi-judicial nature of assessment proceedings, the Court underscored the importance of independent decision-making by the assessing authority. Citing previous judgments, the Court reiterated that the assessing officer must carefully scrutinize materials and assess tax payable without being swayed by superior officers' directions. In light of these principles and the petitioner's willingness to deposit the tax amount, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the cases back to the 1st respondent for fresh orders. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit the tax amount in installments as specified.

5. Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Writ Petitions were allowed, and no costs were imposed. The matters were remanded back to the 1st respondent for fresh orders, with specific instructions regarding the deposit of the demanded tax amount by the petitioner. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed as a result of the judgment.

---