Assessing Officers must conduct independent assessments, not influenced by superiors.

The Court held that Assessing Officers must make independent assessments without being influenced by superiors. Relying on a precedent, the Court emphasized that assessments solely based on higher authorities' directions are not legally valid. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to independently review the petitioner's objections to the notices and provide a reasoned decision, allowing for a personal hearing. Emphasizing the quasi-judicial nature of assessment proceedings, the Court instructed that assessments should be conducted fairly. The writ petitions were disposed of with these directions, and no costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to notices issued under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for revising assessments from 2011-12 to 2016-17. Allegation of Assessing Officer's inability to make independent decisions due to directives from superiors.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed writ petitions against notices issued by the second respondent under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, seeking to revise assessments for multiple years. The main contention was that the Assessing Officer was allegedly unable to make independent decisions as he was bound by directives from superiors, either in the form of proposals from officials of the Enforcement Wing or circulars.

The Court referred to a significant precedent, the case of Madras Granites Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CTO, Arisipalayam Circle, Salem, where it was emphasized that Assessing Officers must conduct assessments independently. The Court highlighted that Assessing Officers are quasi-judicial authorities and should not be bound by instructions from higher authorities. In the mentioned case, it was held that assessments based solely on directions from superiors are not sustainable in law, and such orders need to be quashed.

The Court directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's objections to the impugned notices independently and pass a speaking order on merits and in accordance with the law. The Assessing Officer was instructed to give the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing. The Court emphasized that assessment proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature and should be conducted without any arbitrariness or capriciousness. The writ petitions were disposed of with this direction, and no costs were awarded.

---