2016 (9) TMI 828

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the intimation issued by the 1st respondent dated 12.08.2016 and further, to direct the 1st respondent to proceed with the adjudication for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2014-15 in the light of the objections submitted by the petitioner dated 01.04.2015. 3. The 1st respondent is the petitioner's Assessing Officer. For the Assessment Years 2007-2008 to 2014-2015, the 1st respondent issued pre-revision notices dated 27.02.2015 which was pursuant to an inspection conducted by the Enforcement Officers in the place of business of the petitioner on 21.01.2015 and 24.01.2015. In respect of the relevant Assessment Years, various issues were raised for consideration, which have been mentioned in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t before the 1st respondent and requested the 1st respondent to finalise the proceedings after accepting their reply dated 01.04.2015. For this representation, the petitioner was visited with an intimation dated 12.08.2016 stating that the petitioner's request cannot be considered as of now since the deviation proposal has been sent by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent and it is pending with the higher authority and after getting the reply from the higher authority, the petitioner's request will be considered as per law. The Assessing Officer, should note that though the 2nd respondent is the superior officer in the hierarchy in the Department, nevertheless, he is the Assessing Officer of the 1st respondent and has got a stat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....how that the assessing officer has not independently applied his mind, but adopted the sales turnover as found in D3 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 the basis of the directions of his higher authority in completing the assessments. We hold that the assessments are not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the orders of assessment in both the matters are liable to be quashed and consequently, the orders of the Special Tribunal, confirming the orders of assessment are also liab....