Court quashes orders for failure to follow directions, remands for re-assessment.

M/s. Uma Agencies, M/s. Meenakshi Enterprises, M/s. Ravi Enterprises Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT) -IV (FAC), The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) FAC, Mr. Jayachandran

M/s. Uma Agencies, M/s. Meenakshi Enterprises, M/s. Ravi Enterprises Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT) -IV (FAC), The Appellate Deputy Commissioner ... Issues:
1. Failure to conduct re-assessment as directed by the appellate authority.
2. Allegations of passing impugned orders without following specific directions.
3. Discrepancies in the assessment process.
4. Request for quashing of impugned orders and remanding the matter back to the Assessing Authority for re-assessment.

Issue 1: Failure to conduct re-assessment as directed by the appellate authority
The judgment addressed the failure of the Assessing Authority to conduct re-assessment as directed by the appellate authority. The petitioners argued that the impugned orders were passed without following the specific directions given by the appellate authority. The court acknowledged that re-assessment had not been done by the Assessing Authority in accordance with the directions issued by the appellate authority. It emphasized that when an authority is directed to perform a specific task in a particular manner, it must be done accordingly. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned orders due to the non-compliance with the directions for re-assessment.

Issue 2: Allegations of passing impugned orders without following specific directions
The petitioners contended that the impugned orders were passed by the Assessing Authority without conducting the re-assessment as directed by the appellate authority. The court agreed with this argument, stating that the impugned orders did not meet the legal scrutiny as the Assessing Authority failed to follow the categorical direction given by the appellate authority. Consequently, the court decided to quash the impugned orders due to the non-compliance with the specific directions provided for re-assessment.

Issue 3: Discrepancies in the assessment process
The judgment highlighted discrepancies in the assessment process where the Assessing Authority did not verify the C Form and purchases as directed by the appellate authority. The court noted that the Assessing Authority proceeded to pass the impugned orders without undertaking the re-assessment process as specified. It was emphasized that the failure to follow the mandatory directions for re-assessment rendered the impugned orders unjustifiable and subject to being set aside.

Issue 4: Request for quashing of impugned orders and remanding the matter back for re-assessment
The court, after considering the arguments presented, decided to quash the impugned orders due to the non-compliance with the directions for re-assessment. However, it also acknowledged that the direction given by the appellate authority could be followed by the present Assessing Authority upon remanding the matter back. The court ordered the matter to be remanded back to the Assessing Authority for re-assessment in accordance with the directions issued by the appellate authority. It directed the completion of the re-assessment exercise within three months and the passing of final orders after addressing all points raised by the petitioners.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses the issues raised, the arguments presented by the parties, and the court's decision regarding the failure to conduct re-assessment, passing impugned orders without following specific directions, discrepancies in the assessment process, and the request for quashing of impugned orders and remanding the matter back for re-assessment.