Court quashes proceedings, remands to Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. Petitioner to receive personal hearing.

The Court quashes the impugned proceedings based on Audit Reports/Inspection Proposals, remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The Assessing Officer must adhere to the Tribunal's directions, provide a personal hearing to the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders within twelve weeks. The Writ Petition is allowed, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed without costs.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Impugned proceeding based on Audit Reports/Inspection Proposals.
2. Assessing Officer not independently applying mind.
3. Assessing Officer solely guided by higher authorities' proposals.
4. Circular empowering Assessing Authority to deviate from proposals.
5. Assessment not in conformity with Tribunal's directions.

Analysis:
1. The Writ Petition challenges the impugned proceeding based on Audit Reports/Inspection Proposals from the Enforcement Wing or ISIC Authorities. The petitioner argues that the Assessing Officer did not independently apply his mind but relied on higher authorities' reports. The Court has previously held that the Assessing Officer must not be solely guided by such proposals and must consider them independently. This view was supported by decisions in cases like Madras Granites (P) Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer and Narasus Roller Flour Mills vs. Commercial Tax Office.

2. The Court upholds the principle that the Assessing Officer should not be influenced by proposals of higher officials. A circular issued by the Commissioner of State Tax empowers Assessing Authorities to deviate from proposals without seeking approval from higher authorities. This circular, dated 18.01.2019, allows Assessing Officers to independently finalize assessments if they find the proposals not in conformity with the law or established principles without seeking approval.

3. The petitioner was assessed to the Best of Judgment for the Assessment Year 1994-95 following an inspection by Enforcement Wing Officers. The Tribunal remitted the assessment back to the Assessing Officer for pre-determination, directing a thorough examination of each transaction in the Form-F Declaration. However, the Assessing Officer failed to comply with the Tribunal's order, not examining each transaction as directed. This non-compliance with the Tribunal's order is considered an infirmity in the proceedings, warranting the setting aside of the assessment.

4. Consequently, the Court quashes the impugned proceedings and remands the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The Assessing Officer is instructed to adhere to the directions of the Tribunal, provide a personal hearing to the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders within twelve weeks. The Writ Petition is allowed, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed without costs.

---