2014 (9) TMI 618

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....892 of 2014. The petitioner is a dealer in timber and assessee on the files of the first respondent. They filed the returns under Section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act) for the year 2007-08. Similar returns were filed for the other assessment years which were accepted and orders were passed. Subsequently, the first respondent issued notice under Section 27(2) of the Act proposing to revise the claim of Input Tax Credit and also proposing levy of penalty under Section 27(2)(iii) of the Act. It was alleged that an inspection was conducted in the place of business of the assessee and that the assessee had availed larger claim of Input Tax Credit, which were not entitled to and records were furnished regarding the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e pre-revision notice was confirmed. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings, the petitioner came to know that the assessing officer confirmed the proposal solely based on the rejection of the deviation proposal (D3 Proposal) sent to the second respondent. The assessee would state that the deviation proposal sent by the first respondent was not within the knowledge of the assessee and it appears to have been an internal communication and when the petitioner sought for information from the first respondent under the provisions of the Right To Information Act, a reply was given to the petitioner dated 23.12.2013 stating that the entire particulars relating to rejection of the deviation proposal (D3 proposal) and they were dealt with only in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....orcement, has directed the assessing officer to complete the assessment on the basis of the proposal in D-3 form, we find that the assessing officer, who is lower in rank in the hierarchy of officers, is bound by the said direction, and the records also show that the assessing officer has not independently applied his mind, but adopted the sales turnover as found in D- 3 proposal and also levied the penalty in the manner indicated in D-3 proposal. It is well-settled that the assessing officer is a quasi-judicial authority and in exercising his quasi-judicial function of completing the assessment, he is not bound by the instructions or directions of the higher authorities. We find that in both the matters the assessing officer has acted on t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d out that though there is availability of alternative remedy of appeal, that would not be an absolute bar in entertaining these writ petitions. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, when the order is in violation of the principles of natural justice or without jurisdiction, this Court is not denuded of jurisdiction to exercise its powers under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. 8.On a perusal of the impugned assessment order, it is seen that the assessing authority referred the averments made in the show cause notice and thereafter, it has proceeded to refer the deviation proposal (D3) given by the first respondent and proceeded to assess the petitioner and also levy penalty. Even in the D3 p....