TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 227
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....03.2017 and deposit further 10 % of the tax demanded within a period of three weeks. 3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent, we have taken up the writ petitions for final disposal along with the writ appeals. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per the nomenclature in the writ petitions. 5. The petitioner is a Dealer of Sweets and Savouries and registered on the file of the respondent under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act (hereinafter, referred to as the Act ). In these batch of writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged the assessment orders for the year 2009-2010 to 2014-2015, all dated 06.01.2017. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in some of the assessment orders, the entire tax demanded has been paid and the impugned orders of the assessment are challenged only with regard to the levy of penalty. In respect of the other assessment orders, the Assessing Officer has not only levied taxes, but imposed penalty as well, and therefore, the petitioner has questioned those assessment orders both ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the materials placed on record. 11. The place of business of the petitioner was inspected by the officials of the Enforcement Wing of the Commercial Tax Department on 17.11.2015. A proposal was sent by the Enforcement Group to the Assessing Officer vide proceedings, dated 29.04.2016. Based on such proposal, notices were issued to the petitioner on 06.05.2016 and 20.07.2016 stating that they have filed monthly returns in Form-L and paid tax at the compounded rate under Section 8 of the Act and in terms of Explanation-I to Section 8(1)(b) of the Act for the purpose of computing the total turnover under the said sub-section, the purchase turnover liable to tax under Section 12 of the Act shall be added to the sales turnover. Further, the petitioner did not maintain any accounts for the relevant years, not produced any invoices and in the absence of accounts and non-production of business transactions, the sales turnover was arrived at by taking average of three days sales and multiplying it by 355 days, after excluding ten days as national holidays. 12. Based on the above allegations, notices were issued calling for objections from the petitioner. From the perusal of the impugne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Assessing Officer was largely guided by the proposal of the Enforcement Wing and the stand taken by the petitioner before the Enforcement Officials as the pre-revision notices itself were a sequel to the report of the enforcement group, dated 29.04.2016. It is well settled legal proposition that the Assessing Officer is an independent authority and quasi- judicial authority, who is required to complete the assessment based on the materials placed before it and not to be guided or act on the dictates of its superiors. If it is so done, it would amount to a clear case of abdication of the duties and responsibilities of the Assessing Officer. 16. The second issue, which emerges from the impugned assessment orders, is with regard to conduct of the petitioner. We do not approve the manner in which the petitioner has responded to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer. The various dates on which replies and representations were made by the petitioner (referred supra) would clearly indicate that there was a clear attempt on the part of the petitioner to drag the matter. However, ultimately, a reply was submitted by the petitioner on 07.11.2016 followed by the additional reply ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....failure to produce documents before the Enforcement Wing or before her. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the issue as to whether the product sold by the petitioner is to be taxed at 14.5% or 2% is required to be decided, we are of the view that the matter can be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration subject to stringent conditions. 19. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Writ Court had granted an order of interim stay on condition to pay 20% of the tax demanded, of which 10% has already been paid by the appellant and in respect of the assessment years, where only penalty has been levied, it would not be reasonable to impose a condition to pay 10% of the penalty when no such pre- condition is required to be complied with if an appeal is filed before the Appellate Authority challenging the levy of penalty alone. Therefore, it is submitted that some indulgence may be granted to the petitioner and the petitioner may be given liberty to appear before the Assessing Officer, produce the books of accounts and all documents and substantiate their case before the Assessing Officer. 20. In the light of the ....