Independent quasi-judicial assessment required; tax dispute remanded for fresh consideration despite prior non-cooperation.

Assessment orders cannot stand where the Assessing Officer appears to have relied chiefly on an Enforcement Wing proposal without making an independent quasi-judicial evaluation of the dealer's objections and available material. Even if records were not produced at the proper stage, reasons must be recorded for rejecting the dealer's stand and the decision must reflect the officer's own application of mind. The matter was remanded for de novo assessment because no clear final warning of ex parte completion was shown, and a further opportunity was considered appropriate, subject to conditions protecting the revenue and treating the existing orders as show-cause notices upon compliance.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment orders could be sustained when the Assessing Officer appeared to have proceeded largely on the basis of the Enforcement Wing proposal without independent consideration of the petitioner's objections and materials; (ii) whether the matter should be remanded for fresh assessment with opportunity to produce accounts and documents, despite the petitioner's failure to cooperate at the assessment stage.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment orders could be sustained when the Assessing Officer appeared to have proceeded largely on the basis of the Enforcement Wing proposal without independent consideration of the petitioner's objections and materials.

Analysis: The assessment record showed that the pre-revision notices followed the Enforcement Wing report and that the impugned orders substantially relied on that proposal. The Assessing Officer, as a quasi-judicial authority, was required to decide the matter on the materials placed before her and not act merely on the dictates or conclusions of the enforcement machinery. Even where the dealer had not produced books and documents despite opportunity, the assessment still had to rest on an independent evaluation of the objections and available material, with reasons recorded for rejecting the dealer's stand.

Conclusion: The assessment orders could not be approved as they stood, because they were not shown to be the result of an independent quasi-judicial determination.

Issue (ii): Whether the matter should be remanded for fresh assessment with opportunity to produce accounts and documents, despite the petitioner's failure to cooperate at the assessment stage.

Analysis: Although the petitioner had delayed the proceedings and failed to produce records at the proper stage, the record did not clearly show that a final specific notice was issued warning that the assessment would be completed ex parte if the opportunity was not availed. In these circumstances, and since the dispute also involved the correct rate of tax on the goods sold, the appropriate course was to afford one more opportunity through de novo proceedings, while protecting the revenue by imposing conditions for compliance.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded for fresh consideration subject to conditions, with the assessment orders to be treated as show-cause notices upon compliance.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only to the extent of securing a fresh assessment, and the dispute was sent back for de novo adjudication on merits with interim protective conditions in favour of the revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment cannot be sustained where it is effectively dictated by an enforcement proposal rather than arrived at by the Assessing Officer's independent quasi-judicial application of mind, and where fairness so requires the matter may be remanded for fresh consideration subject to conditions even if the assessee had defaulted in producing records earlier.

---