The Madras High Court ruled that if reasoning stated by the Enforcement Officials is taken as the correct reason, then there is no need for the assessing officer to be there to frame the assessment.
The petitioner, M/s.Next IT World is a dealer in computer peripherals. He has registered with the respondent as an assessee. The assessment years pertain to 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17. The petitioner’s assessment was deemed to have been concluded under Section 22(2) of TNVAT Act. While so, the petitioner’s place of business was inspected by the Enforcement Wing Officers. Certain discrepancies were noticed.
Based on the report of the Enforcement Wing Officials, the respondent issued pre revision notices. The petitioner offered his explanation in response to all the three notices.
Thereafter, personal hearing appears to have been given at least for the assessment year 2015-16 and also for the assessment year 2014-15. The petitioner’s stand was rejected and the proposals set out in the show cause notices were confirmed. The impugned orders are put to challenge in these writ petitions.
The respondents have filed a detailed reply controverting the stand projected by the petitioner. The learned Special Government Pleader took me through the averments set out in the counter affidavit. Her argument is basically two fold. She would argue that during the personal hearing, the petitioner did not produce any records so as to substantiate his defence. The other defence is that these writ petitions are not maintainable because the petitioner is very much having an alternative remedy of appeal.
The petitioner has projected his defence in the replies. Along with the notices, documents have also been enclosed. The petitioner’s counsel would further claim that when the personal hearing took place, the documents were produced. But his core argument is that the respondent did not independently apply his mind. The petitioner’s counsel would strongly contend that the respondent through a quasi judicial officer chose to go-by the stand of the Enforcement Wing Officials.
The single-judge bench of Justice G.R.Swaminathan while quashing the impugned order ruled that it is expected from the assessing officer to consider the objections and either accept or reject the same by giving valid reasons by applying his mind. This approach has not at all been adopted in the case on hand.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. We welcome your comments at info@taxscan.in
