TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 79
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment order for the Assessment Year 2003-04 in W.P.No.3266 of 2013. Since the grounds raised in both these Writ Petitions are predominantly common, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of, through a common order. 3. The petitioner herein is a dealer engaged in the manufacture of edible oil and effects purchases of edible oil from in and out of the State and in turn effects sales. The original assessment for the Assessment Year for TNGST 2002-03 was completed by the first respondent based on the returns filed and upon verification of accounts. Between 08.10.2003 and 14.10.2003, the Economic Wing Officers had conducted an inspection and accordingly, a revision of assessment notice dated 21.02.2008 was issued, contending that among others, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing lab reports has to be accounted for; ii) the production-cum-stock register accounts in Form XXX as prescribed in Rule 26(14) of the TNGST Rules was not maintained; and iii) separate stock registers for local and interstate purchases were not produced before the Inspecting Officers. 6. In the mean time, from the information obtained through RTI, the petitioner was appraised that the Assessment Authority had forwarded a deviation proposal to the second respondent stating that there is no material to establish missing suppression on the basis of the missing lab reports, which came to be rejected by the second respondent, with further instructions to implement the D3 proposals. The second deviation proposal of the first respondent wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herwise, the petitioner is able to show that there is no suppression or no relevant records are missing. The petitioner, had thereafter submitted their objections establishing that there was no suppression and no relevant records were missing. The Assessment Authority had taken into consideration the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.5278 of 2008 and submitted deviation proposals to the second respondent stating that there is no other material to establish suppression on the basis of the missing lab reports, which was rejected by the second respondent on 11.10.2010, thereby directing the first respondent to implement the D3 proposals. The second deviation proposal dated 14.01.2011 was also rejected. Thus, it is seen that though the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s superior officer, namely, the second respondent, made in his order dated 31.01.2012, rejecting the second deviation report. Apart from reiterating the views of the second respondent, there is absolutely no independent reasoning adduced by the first respondent. As a matter of fact, the first respondent had employed the 'copy and paste' technology in the computer and extracted the orders of the second respondent in the present impugned orders, in verbatim. 12. It would be useful to make a reference to various orders of this Court holding that the Assessing Officer cannot be solely guided by the proposal given by the Enforcement Wing Officers and that the Assessing Officer has to independently consider the same, without being influe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... TNGST Rules. It is permissible to maintain the production-cum-stock accounts in Form XXX or in any other form, as long as it contained all the necessary information. With regard to the missing lab reports, the Assessing Authority had concluded that the D3 proposals does not clearly establish the relevance of the lab report either for purchase or sale and in view of the fact that the lab reports is not a document to be maintained under the TNGST Act and in view of the directions of this Court in W.P.No.5278 of 2008, the missing lab report cannot be treated as sales suppressions. 15. The learned Government Advocate submitted that during the course of the impugned proceedings before the first respondent, the dealers have not produced any rec....