Court directs expedited appeal, no coercive recovery until decision. Emphasizes adherence to legal precedents.

The court declined to entertain the petition challenging the assessment order but directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to expedite the pending appeal. It emphasized the need for revenue authorities to follow legal precedents and ordered no coercive recovery until the appeal was decided. The court criticized the Assessing Officer for not justifying the departure from previous assessments and highlighted the importance of maintaining judicial discipline in tax assessments by following higher appellate authorities' decisions.

---

---

Issues involved:
Challenge to assessment order based on ignoring previous court decision and assessment history.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the assessment order directly in court due to the Assessing Officer's high-pitched assessment, adding a significant amount by disallowing a payment for milk. The petitioner argued that previous assessment years had no such additions, and the current decision contradicted a previous High Court ruling. The petitioner emphasized the need for court intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

On the other hand, the respondent argued that the petitioner should have pursued the statutory appeal route before approaching the High Court. The respondent defended the Assessing Officer's decision, suggesting that the facts in the current year differed from previous years, justifying the addition made.

The court considered the principle that a litigant should exhaust alternative remedies before seeking court intervention. However, the court acknowledged that glaring lapses by the Assessing Officer, including disregarding a previous court decision and consistent assessment history, warranted consideration of the petition. Despite this, the court refrained from interfering to avoid duplication of assessment review by multiple authorities.

The court criticized the Assessing Officer's conduct for not justifying the departure from previous assessments and not providing reasons for the significant addition made. The court referenced legal precedents emphasizing the importance of following higher appellate authorities' decisions to maintain judicial discipline in tax assessments.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the petition without entertaining it but directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to expedite the pending appeal, considering the past favorable decisions for the petitioner. The court also ordered no coercive recovery for the disputed amount until the appeal was decided. The court highlighted the importance for revenue authorities to adhere to legal precedents to avoid facing contempt proceedings for willful disregard of court decisions.

---