Court quashes assessment orders, remits case, sets response, decision deadlines

The court quashed the assessment orders dated 16.09.2019 and remitted the case back to the assessing officer. The petitioner was directed to respond to the revision notices within 30 days, and the assessing officer was instructed to issue a decision within 60 days. The assessment orders were to be considered as corrigenda to the revision notices. The court concluded by disposing of the writ petitions without awarding costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the assessment orders dated 16.09.2019.
2. Request for appointment of a Joint Commissioner to arbitrate the reassessment proceedings.
3. Compliance with principles of natural justice.
4. Validity of the procedure followed by the assessing officer.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the assessment orders dated 16.09.2019:
The petitioner challenged the assessment orders for the years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, arguing that these were passed without awaiting the disposal of their request for appointing a Joint Commissioner. The court noted that the petitioner had sought the appointment of a Joint Commissioner to arbitrate the legality of the reassessment notices issued following an inspection by the Enforcement Directorate. Despite this, the second respondent proceeded with the assessment orders, leading to the petitioner's contention that these orders should be quashed.

2. Request for appointment of a Joint Commissioner to arbitrate the reassessment proceedings:
The petitioner argued that the reassessment notices were inflated and that a Joint Commissioner should be appointed to arbitrate, as was done in a similar case involving Tvl. Madras Cements Limited. The petitioner cited the shared use of a godown with M/s. V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Limited and the use of their delivery challans for transporting oil seeds as reasons for the alleged irregularities. The court, however, found no provision in the TNVAT Act, 2016 for appointing an Arbitrator to review the revision notices and deemed this request as a dilatory tactic.

3. Compliance with principles of natural justice:
The petitioner cited several precedents, including *Madras Granites (P) Limited vs. Commercial Tax Officer* and *Mahadayal Premchandra vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Calcutta*, to argue that the assessing officer must independently apply their mind and not merely follow higher authority's directions. The court acknowledged these principles but found that the petitioner had not filed a reply to the revision notices on merits and instead sought an Arbitrator's appointment, which was not legally supported.

4. Validity of the procedure followed by the assessing officer:
The court noted that the petitioner failed to appear for personal hearings and did not submit a reply on merits to the revision notices. The court emphasized that the assessing officer should have informed the petitioner about the hearing and the decision to proceed without appointing an Arbitrator. The court found procedural lapses in issuing the impugned assessment orders without proper notice to the petitioner.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the impugned assessment orders dated 16.09.2019 and remitted the case back to the second respondent. The petitioner was directed to file a reply to the revision notices dated 02.08.2018 within 30 days, and the second respondent was instructed to pass a speaking order on merits within 60 days. The impugned assessment orders were to be treated as corrigenda to the revision notices. The writ petitions were disposed of with these observations, and no costs were awarded.

---