Independent consideration of objections required in assessment, leading to set-aside and remand for fresh orders.

Assessment orders were set aside because the assessing authority was required to independently consider the dealer's objections and documentary evidence, rather than act merely on an enforcement wing proposal. The Court applied the principle that objections must be examined on their own merits and a reasoned order must be passed on the material on record. As the respondents did not seriously dispute the challenge and the assessment process was defective, the matters were remitted for fresh consideration with an opportunity to file objections and evidence and to be heard personally.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned assessment orders were liable to be set aside for failure to properly consider the petitioner's objections and whether the matters should be remitted for fresh assessment.

Analysis: The assessment orders were challenged on the ground that the assessing authority had proceeded on the basis of the enforcement wing's proposal without independently applying mind to the documentary evidence and objections filed by the petitioner. The Court noted that the cited decisions required the assessing authority to examine objections on their own merits and pass a reasoned order after considering the material on record. In the present case, the respondents did not seriously dispute the petitioner's submissions, and the circumstances justified interference with the assessment orders. The Court therefore found it appropriate to set aside the orders and remit the matters for fresh consideration after granting opportunity to the petitioner to file objections and evidence and after affording personal hearing.

Conclusion: The assessment orders were set aside and the matters were remanded to the assessing authority for fresh orders in accordance with law, which is in favour of the petitioner.

---