TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court directs petitioner to raise objections before Assessing Authority, emphasizes fairness in assessment proceedings</h1> <h3>D. Sureshkumar Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, The Commercial Tax Officer</h3> The High Court refused to entertain a writ petition challenging proceedings to revise assessment prematurely, directing the petitioner to raise objections ... Revision of assessment - jurisdiction of 2nd respondent to frame an assessment - Held that:- Admittedly, the 1st respondent is an Enforcement official, whereas the 2nd respondent is the Assessing Authority. Now, the impugned notice is issued by the 2nd respondent making certain proposals for revision of the assessment. Needless to state that the petitioner can raise all his objection before the 2nd respondent by way of filing a reply to the notice of proposal - Without doing so, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition by challenging the proceedings at the notice stage itself. This Court is, thus, not inclined to entertain the writ petition, at this stage, as any expression made by this Court on the contention raised by the petitioner would prejudice further proceedings before the 2nd respondent. This Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to give reply to the notice of proposal by raising all the contentions, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Issues:Challenge to proceedings proposing to revise assessment; Jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority; Prejudice in entertaining the writ petition at the notice stage; Influence on Assessing Authority by higher officials; Disposal of the Writ Petition directing reply to notice of proposal.Analysis:The Writ petition challenges the proceedings proposing to revise the assessment, contending that the Assessing Authority lacks jurisdiction due to a prior notice and payment made to the Enforcement official. The High Court notes the distinction between the Enforcement official (1st respondent) and the Assessing Authority (2nd respondent) issuing the impugned notice for revision. The petitioner is directed to raise objections before the Assessing Authority instead of filing the writ petition prematurely. The Court refuses to entertain the petition at this stage to avoid prejudicing further proceedings.The petitioner expresses apprehension regarding potential influence on the Assessing Authority by higher officials. The Court emphasizes the quasi-judicial nature of the Assessing Authority, requiring impartial consideration of issues based on merits and law, unaffected by external directions or reports. The Court refrains from expressing any opinion on the case's merits but instructs the petitioner to respond to the notice of proposal within two weeks. The Assessing Authority is directed to make decisions based on merits and law, providing a hearing opportunity to the petitioner within eight weeks of receiving the reply.In conclusion, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the directive for the petitioner to respond to the notice of proposal within a specified period. The Assessing Authority is instructed to make decisions based on merits and law, ensuring a fair hearing for the petitioner. The Court emphasizes the importance of impartiality and adherence to legal procedures in the assessment process, closing the connected miscellaneous petition without costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
