2015 (12) TMI 1428 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court sets aside assessment orders, emphasizes assessing authority's duty to independently evaluate materials

The court set aside the assessment orders challenged by a registered dealer in edible oil, emphasizing the importance of the assessing authority ... Non speaking orders - Exemption under CST - petitioner had not produced the declarations and related documents - Held that:- In the case of Madras Granites (P) Limited vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Arisipalayam Circle, Salem and another reported in [2002 (10) TMI 767 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], a Division Bench of this Court made it very clear that when records are produced before the authority concerned, the same should be considered by the authority concerned and by applying his mind independently in the issues related to the assessment, should pass appropriate orders, after affording due opportunity. - impugned orders are liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same are set aside. The matters are remitted back to the respondent for passing fresh orders after verifying the books of accounts, considering the objections and after affording an opportunity of being heard - Decided in favour of Assessee. Issues:Challenging assessment orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Violation of principles of natural justice; Allegations of non-speaking orders; Failure to consider materials independently; Non-production of documentary evidences before Enforcement Wing Officials; Failure to consider documents produced before the Assessing Authority; Application of mind by the Assessing Authority; Quashing of assessment orders based on legal precedents; Remitting matters back to the Assessing Authority for fresh orders.Analysis:The petitioner, a registered dealer in edible oil, challenged assessment orders issued by the respondent, alleging violations of natural justice. The petitioner contended that despite submitting detailed replies and necessary documents, the assessment orders were passed without due consideration, solely based on the Enforcement Wing Officials' report. The petitioner argued that the respondent failed to independently assess the materials provided, leading to confirmation of proposals without proper review. The petitioner highlighted the quasi-judicial nature of the respondent's role and emphasized the importance of considering objections and enclosures before finalizing assessment orders.The learned counsel for the petitioner cited legal precedents to support the argument that the impugned orders were non-speaking orders passed without proper application of mind. It was contended that the respondent should have evaluated the documents and materials presented by the petitioner objectively, rather than merely implementing proposals without independent assessment. The counsel stressed that the assessing authority must consider the books of accounts and documents without being influenced by external findings, as failure to do so would invalidate the proceedings and render the assessment orders legally flawed.On the other hand, the Additional Government Pleader argued that the petitioner did not produce necessary documentary evidence before the Enforcement Wing Officials during inspection, although records were later submitted to the Assessing Authority. The respondent contended that the documents provided post-inspection were considered fictitious and fabricated to evade tax liability. The court reviewed the submissions from both parties and examined the records available.The court noted that the main allegation against the petitioner was the non-production of records during the initial inspection by the Enforcement Wing Officials. Citing a relevant legal precedent, the court emphasized the importance of the assessing authority independently evaluating the materials presented and passing orders after due consideration. Given that the documents were produced before the assessment orders were issued but not considered, the court concluded that the impugned orders were unsustainable. Consequently, the court set aside the assessment orders and remitted the matters back to the respondent for fresh orders, instructing a thorough review of the books of accounts, consideration of objections, and an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard within a specified timeframe.