Independent adjudication required where audit officers later pass assessment orders; recovery falls with the quashed assessment.

Assessment orders based on audit objections could not be sustained where the same officers who issued the audit observations also adjudicated the matter against the assessee. The court found that such adjudication lacked proper independence and required reconsideration by a different proper officer. Once the assessment orders were quashed, the consequential recovery proceedings also could not survive. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh consideration from the stage of reply to the show-cause notices before an officer unconnected with the earlier audit action.

---

---

Issues: Whether assessment and consequential recovery proceedings could be sustained when the same officers who had issued the audit observations and initiated the proceedings passed the impugned orders, and whether the matter required reconsideration by another proper officer.

Analysis: The impugned orders were passed by the very officers who had earlier issued the audit observations. In the circumstances, the adjudication could not be sustained when the same officials proceeded to determine the matter against the assessee. Following the earlier coordinate bench view, the proper course was to exclude those officers from further adjudication and require reconsideration by a different proper officer. The consequential recovery action also could not survive once the assessment orders were quashed, and the matter was required to be taken up afresh from the stage of reply to the show-cause notices.

Conclusion: The assessment orders and consequential recovery proceedings were quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration by a proper officer other than the officers who had passed the impugned orders.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded in part, with the adjudication set aside, recovery nullified, and the dispute sent back for de novo consideration before an unconnected with the earlier audit action.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudication order should not be sustained where the same officers who initiated the audit-based proceedings also pass the impugned orders, and the matter must be reconsidered by an impartial proper officer.

---