TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 1193
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the TNVAT Act, 2006) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner is primarily engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of gold ornaments and silver articles and anklets. The petitioner is also engaged in the trading of diamonds/diamond fixed ornaments and gold bullion. 3. The challenge in these batch of cases could be divided into two. The first three writ petitions namely W.P.Nos.19007 to 19009 relate to the assessment years 2012-13 to 2014-15. The other four cases are almost identical excepting the fact that they relate to the assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15. 4. The impugned orders are being challenged on the ground ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ht to have afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, examined the books of accounts and records that may be produced by the petitioner and proceeded to pass an order. 7. Though the explanation has been received in the office of the respondent on 23.10.2015, for quite some time, no action appears to have been initiated. The impugned orders of assessment came to be passed only on 28.4.2016, in which, it has been stated that the petitioner had not filed any objections to the proposal for revision of assessment. This statement is factually incorrect and the petitioner has been able to establish before this Court that the respondent had received the explanation along with enclosures on 23.10.2015. This is sufficient to ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vertheless show cause notices dated 24.8.2015 were issued and the petitioner filed their reply dated 10.9.2015, which has been received in the office of the respondent on 21.9.2015 as evident from the acknowledgment given. In the said explanation, the petitioner specifically pleaded for an opportunity of personal hearing, so that they will be able to place all points. Admittedly, no opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the petitioner. But, the respondent proceeded to conclude the assessment proceedings and passed the orders dated 9.5.2016. 11. As observed earlier, this Court has not gone into the merits of the case, but is examining the correctness of the impugned orders as to whether they satisfy the settled legal principles p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... including the decision of the Supreme Court, held as follows : "We are also governed by a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in K.S.Shivji & Co. Vs. Joint Commercial Tax Officer reported in (1965) 16 STC 769 (page 771 in 16 STC) : '.....We need hardly observe that the assessment proceedings are quasi judicial in nature and therefore, the Assessing Authority has an independent duty to carefully scrutinize the materials for assessment and satisfy himself, thoroughly uninfluenced by any direction of superior officers and assess the tax payable on that basis....' We are completely in agreement that the assessment proceedings are quasi judicial in nature and therefore, the Assessing Authority has an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In the instant case, the petitioner has not only stated that the pre-prepared statement was compelled to be signed, but also stated that they gave their objections on 5.3.2015 for correction of the statement, which was recorded on 17.2.2015. Therefore, the respondent wrongly proceeded as if the petitioner had admitted the defects pointed out by the Enforcement Wing. All these issues could have been very well clarified, had the respondent afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, especially when the petitioner had sought for the same specifically in their explanation. 17. At this stage, it would be beneficial to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of SRC Projects Pvt. Ltd....