Independent adjudication and personal hearing are mandatory in reassessment; audit reports cannot be accepted mechanically.

Assessment proceedings are quasi-judicial, so the Assessing Officer must independently examine the record and the dealer's objections rather than mechanically adopt an Enforcement Wing audit report. A notice may be founded on an audit report, but the report is not conclusive and cannot replace independent adjudication; reassessment orders based on presumed acceptance of disputed audit findings were therefore unsustainable. Where a personal hearing is specifically requested and objections are filed, denial of that hearing violates natural justice. The reassessment orders were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after hearing and independent scrutiny of the objections.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Assessing Officer could mechanically implement the Enforcement Wing audit report without independent scrutiny of the dealer's objections. (ii) Whether failure to grant a personal hearing vitiated the reassessment orders.

Issue (i): Whether the Assessing Officer could mechanically implement the Enforcement Wing audit report without independent scrutiny of the dealer's objections.

Analysis: Assessment proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature, and the Assessing Officer has an independent duty to examine the materials, consider the dealer's objections, and decide the matter on merits without being influenced by the audit report or any external direction. A notice based on an enforcement report may initiate proceedings, but the report cannot be treated as conclusive or as a substitute for independent adjudication. The impugned orders wrongly proceeded on the footing that the audit findings had to be implemented as such and that the alleged defects had been admitted, even though the dealer had disputed the statement and sought correction.

Conclusion: The Assessing Officer could not mechanically accept the audit report, and the reassessment orders were unsustainable on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether failure to grant a personal hearing vitiated the reassessment orders.

Analysis: Where a dealer specifically seeks a personal hearing and files objections to the proposed revision, denial of such hearing amounts to violation of settled principles of natural justice. The record showed that the petitioner had sought a hearing and had filed objections, yet the assessment was completed without affording that opportunity. The observation that there was no need for hearing was contrary to the legal position governing adverse tax determinations.

Conclusion: The reassessment orders were vitiated for breach of natural justice due to denial of personal hearing.

Final Conclusion: The impugned reassessment orders were set aside and the matters were remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner and independently examining the objections and records.

Ratio Decidendi: In reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer must independently adjudicate the dealer's objections and cannot treat an audit report as binding, and an adverse order passed without granting a requested personal hearing violates natural justice.

---