Independent application of mind in reassessment is essential; mechanical acceptance of Enforcement Wing reports can invalidate the order.

In tax reassessment, an Assessing Officer acting in a quasi-judicial capacity must independently evaluate the dealer's objections and supporting material before finalising the demand. Where pre-revision objections are rejected in a cryptic manner and the assessment merely adopts the Enforcement Wing report without testing its correctness, the order reflects non-application of mind. Such mechanically passed reassessment orders are liable to be quashed, and the matter may be remanded for fresh consideration after giving an opportunity to object and be heard.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment orders were liable to be quashed for want of independent consideration by the Assessing Officer and for blindly accepting the Enforcement Wing report.

Analysis: The petitioner had filed detailed objections to the pre-revision notices and denied suppression of sales or purchases with supporting materials. The impugned orders merely rejected those objections in a cryptic manner and confirmed the proposal based on the field audit report, without independently examining the correctness of the report or the objections raised. In tax reassessment, the Assessing Officer, acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, must independently apply his mind and cannot mechanically adopt the Enforcement Wing's report.

Conclusion: The reassessment orders suffered from total non-application of mind and were liable to be quashed. The matters were remanded for fresh consideration with opportunity of objection and personal hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment order passed in a quasi-judicial capacity is invalid if the Assessing Officer mechanically accepts the Enforcement Wing report without independent consideration of the dealer's objections and supporting material.

---