TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 940
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll dispose of all the seven writ petitions on hand. 2. Mr.P.Rajkumar learned counsel on record for the writ petitioner in all the seven writ petitions and Ms.Dhana Madhri, learned Government Advocate, on behalf of all the three respondents in all the seven writ petitions, are before this Court. 3. These seven writ petitions are listed under the caption 'ADJOURNED ADMISSION'. However, with the consent of both the learned counsel, the main writ petitions itself are taken up, heard out and are being disposed of. 4. Be that as it may. It is submitted by the learned counsel on both sides ie., learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the Revenue without any disputation or disagreement that all th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment years, which form subject matter of this common order are 2008-09 to 2014-15. d. There was a surprise inspection of writ petitioner's place of business by the enforcement wing officials of the respondent department on 25.09.2014. Certain records were taken away from the writ petitioner's shop and the enforcement wing made certain proposals for assessment and levy of tax under TNVAT Act qua the writ petitioner, inter alia on the ground of suppression of certain purchase details. To be noted, this proposal is also predicated on probable omission. e. Based on the aforesaid proposal of the enforcement wing, the first respondent issued notice to the writ petitioner assessee and called upon the writ petitioner as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w be heard to contend that the impugned order has been passed by merely accepting the order of the enforcement wing. It was also submitted by learned counsel for the Revenue that some objections have to be raised before the assessing authority to consider rival pleas so as to embark upon to exercise of the first respondent's quasi judicial function. 10. Be that as it may. Learned counsel for the petitioner pressed into service before this Court order made by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Narasus Roller Flour Mills -Vs- The Commercial Tax Officer reported in (2015) 81 VST 560 (Mad). 11. Adverting to the aforesaid Narasu's principle, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that honourable Single Judge of this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and in exercising his quasi-judicial function of completing the assessment, he is not bound by the instructions or directions of the higher authorities, the same are not sustainable in law. 6.The above decision of the Honourable Division Bench of this Court is squarely applicable to the facts of the petitioner's case. The Assessing Officer has been solely guided by the proposal given by the Inspecting Officer, thereby, there was no independent application of mind and duties enshrined on the Assessing Officer under the provisions of the Act have been given a go-by. Further, when the representations were made by the petitioner stating that the records which are produced had to be taken back for want of time and they are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laboration whatsoever as to why the assessing authority has accepted the proposal given by the enforcement wing. In other words, there is nothing in the impugned assessment orders to show what weighed the mind of the assessing officer to accept the proposal given by the enforcement wing. In the absence of such discussion, it follows as an inevitable sequitur that there is nothing in the impugned orders to say that the first respondent has applied his / her mind independently ie., independent of the proposal of the enforcement wing. Without embarking upon the exercise of ascertaining whether the first respondent has applied his / her mind independent of the proposal given by the enforcement wing, suffice to say that nothing has been recorded....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earing to the writ petitioner. (d) Thereafter, the first respondent shall redo the assessments for all the seven years in accordance with law and more particularly in accordance with Narasu's principle adverted to supra. (e) If the writ petitioner does not avail of the opportunity in pursuance to this order also, it will be open to the first respondent to redo the assessment, without the objections albeit in accordance with Narasu's principle. (f) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the first respondent within eight weeks from the date of the personal hearing, which shall be accorded to the writ petitioner within the aforesaid time frame. (g) The assessment order, after being redone shall....