Tvl. Narasus Roller Flour Mills vs The Commercial Tax Officer

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.—The petitioner, who is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act on the file of the second respondent, has challenged the impugned orders of assessment for the Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2012-13.

The petitioner is a flour mill and they submitted their returns which were finalized on deemed assessment basis for all the years, which are the subject matter of these writ petitions. The Enforcement Wing Officials inspected the place of business on 22.02.2013 and found certain defects, based on which, notices were issued by the second respondent on 18.06.2013 for which the petitioner''s submitted their replies. According to the petitioner, all the relevant documents were enclosed along with their replies. Further, they made representations on 08.08.2013 informing the second respondent that they had produced the purchase bills for all the relevant years before the Assessing Officer for verification with regard to the proposal of making reversal of ITC for the reason of non-production of purchase bills before the Inspecting Officer of the Enforcement Wing for verification at the time of inspection. It is further stated that since no sufficient time was available, the Assessing Officer had not checked the purchase bills produced by them and the bills were taken back by the petitioner to their place of business and they are ready and willing to produce their purchase bills for all the years at any time as and when they are called upon. Further, they requested the Assessing Officer to issue a summon or notice fixing a date for production of purchase bills for the relevant years for verification.

According to the petitioner, the representations sent on 08.08.2013 were received by the second respondent. However, after almost one year, the impugned orders of assessment have been passed stating that the dealer has not produced the purchase bills before the Inspecting Officer and they have not even produced the purchase bills relating to any year at the time of inspection. Further, it is stated that they have not even signed the statement prepared by the Inspecting Officers, which indicates the intention of non-cooperation and the contention before the Assessing Officer that they are having all original bills and the same may be verified and further action dropped is only an afterthought and not acceptable, hence, the question of ''being heard in person'' is not necessary in the petitioner''s case. With the above reasoning, the Assessing Officer rejected the objections filed by the petitioner and confirmed the proposal in the pre-revision notice. These assessment orders are challenged in this writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

After considering the entire facts placed before this Court, this Court is fully convinced that the Assessing Officer has clearly abdicated his quasi-judicial power. The Honorable Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Madras Granties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Arisipalayam Circle, Salem and another reported in (2006) 164 SCT 642, considered the question as to the manner in which the Assessing officer has to proceed with the assessment even though reopening of the assessment was pursuant to a proposal submitted in Form D3 by the Inspecting Officer. The Honorable Division Bench pointed out that the Assessing Officer is a quasi-judicial authority 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.

The above decision of the Honorable 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 willing to produce the records, the Assessing Officer should have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner to produce their records and it is erroneous on the part of the Assessing Officer to have come to the conclusion that the claim made by the petitioner stating that they are having all original bills and the same may be verified and further action dropped is only an after thought. Furthermore, the observation that personal hearing need not be granted is perverse as it is contrary to the provisions of the Statute and contrary to the settled legal principles.

In the result, the impugned orders are held to be bad in law and accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. The second respondent is directed to issue summon / notice to the petitioner directing them to produce all the purchase bills and records in their custody and after hearing the petitioner, the second respondent shall pass reasoned orders on merits with due application of mind and should not be solely guided by the proposal submitted the Inspecting Officer. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.