TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 1160
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Petitions. With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, these Writ Petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner-Company is a manufacturer of hosiery garments as well as effecting sales of cloth and registered as a dealer on the file of the respondents under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 (hereinafter referred as "TNVAT Act") and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as "CST Act"). 3. The place of business of the petitioner was inspected by the Enforcement Wing Officials of the Commercial Taxes Department on 18.01.2016, and certain defects were noticed and it appears that the Enforcement Wing Officials had prepared a report and forwarded the same to the fir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Wing Officials to drop the proposal for the years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner does not know as to what was the report submitted by the Enforcement Wing Officials, which has been forwarded to the first respondent, which is an inter-departmental Communication and the petitioner has not been put on notice as to what direction was issued by the Enforcement Wing Officials to the first respondent. Be that as it may, the first respondent issued notices proposing to revise the assessments already completed and from a perusal of the notices, it is evidently clear that it is a verbatim repetition of the allegation made by the Enforcement Wing Officials against th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... objections to the findings placed before the Inspecting Authority in the petitioner's sworn statement dated 25.01.2016. However, in the impugned assessment orders, the first respondent in a most cryptic manner, confirmed the proposals in the notices, by stating that in the reply/objections filed by the petitioner, dated 25.05.2016, there is no objection as such and the contention raised by the petitioner is vague by merely blaming the Department and therefore, the objection was over-ruled. 6. The impugned assessment orders, in these cases, are a classical example of how an Assessing Officer should not function in spite of repeated decisions of this Court, pointing out the role of the Assessing Officer and it appears that the first r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....considering the effect of such "D-3" proposal, had condoned the arbitrary in the manner in which the Assessing Officer had functioned. At this stage, it will be worthwhile to refer to the operative portion of the said judgement of the Division Bench in Madras Granites (P) Ltd., Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Arisipalayam Circle (referred to supra):- "Therefore, when the higher officer, viz., the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Enforcement, 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 appli....