Madras High Court
M/S.Avataar Enterprises vs The Assistant Commissioner (Ct) on 30 September, 2020
Author: M.S. Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS
Dated : 30.09.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
W.P.Nos.22749 to 22753 of 2016
and W.M.P.Nos.19441 to 19445 of 2016
M/s.Avataar Enterprises,
rep. by its Proprietor
No.18, Katchaleeswarar Agraharam,
Broadway,
Chennai-600 001. ...Petitioner in all W.Ps
Vs.
The Assistant Commissioner (CT),
Broadway Assessment Circle,
199, Thambu Chetty Street,
Chennai-600 001. ...Respondent in all W.Ps
COMMON PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for
the impugned proceedings of the respondent in
TIN/33050061271/2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-
15 respectively and to quash the impugned order dated 31.05.2010
as passed based on the defects noticed from Commercial Taxes
Department Web Site and the enforcement wing official's report and
also without providing for the details requested by the petitioner in
his objections dated 17.08.2015, 01.12.2015, 05.01.2016,
11.01.2016 and 05.02.2016 and so passed contrary to the
http://www.judis.nic.inprinciples of natural justice and also contrary to the judgment of the
2
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Maharastra V.
Suresh Trading Company reported in 109 STC 439 and the Hon'ble
Madras High Court in the case of M/s.Jinsasan Distributors V.
Commercial Tax Officer (CT), Chintaripet Asst Circle reported in 59
VST 256; in the case of M/s.Althaf Shoes (P) Ltd., reported in 50
VST 179; in the case of M/s.Sri Vinayaga Agencies reported in 60
VST 283 and also in the case of M/s.Infiniti Wholesale Limited in
W.P.No.9265 of 2013.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajkumar
in all W.Ps.
For Respondent :Mr.ANR.Jayaprathap, SGP (T)
in all W.Ps.
COMMON ORDER
With the consent of both the parties, the present Writ Petitions are heard today through Video Conferencing.
2. The common issue involved in all these Writ Petitions is that the impugned proceeding is made on the basis of the Audit Reports/Inspection Proposals proceeded from the Enforement Wing or from ISIC Authorities. Among other grounds, the petitioner herein has raised a ground that the Assessing Officer, who is a Quasi Judicial Authority, has not independently applied his mind while dealing with the impugned proceedings, but had adopted the reports and proposals of the Enforcement Wing/ISIC Authorities, who are http://www.judis.nic.in their higher authorities.
3
3. This ground raised by the petitioner has been upheld by this Court in various Writ Petitions 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 influenced by such proposals of the higher officials. Some of the decisions in which such a view has been taken are in the cases of Madras Granites (P) Ltd., Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and Another reported in 2006 (146) STC 642 (MAD) and Narasus Roller Flour Mills Vs. Commercial Tax Office, (Enforcement Wing), Sankagiri and another reported in 2015 (81) VST 560 (MAD).
4. Such a ratio laid down by this Court in all the above Writ Petitions stand good till date and in these background, the Commissioner of State Tax, Chennai had issued Circular No.3 dated 18.01.2019, empowering the Assessing Authority to deviate from the proposals, without seeking for approval from the Enforcement Wing/ISIC Authorities. The relevant portion of Circular No.3 dated 18.01.2019 reads thus:-
“b)If the Assessing Authority is of the view http://www.judis.nic.in that the Audit report or Inspection proposals 4 received from Enforcement wing or proposals received from ISIC are not in conformity with the Law or the established principles set by various higher judicial Forums and if he wishes to deviate from the proposals either partly or wholly, he himself can finalize the assessment or revision of assessment without seeking approval from the Enforcement Wing/ISIC Authorities who had approved the proposals, and reasons for the same to be recorded.” Thus, the Circular has empowered the Assessing Officers to henceforth independently deal with the assessment without being influenced by the proposals of the higher officials.
5. In view of the Circular No.3 dated 18.01.2019 issued by the Commissioner of State Tax, Chennai, all the impugned proceedings in these Writ Petitions, which proceeds on the basis of the proposals/reports of the Enforcement Wing/ISIC, are set aside and consequently, the matters are remanded back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessees are granted liberty to file their objections with all supporting documents, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such objections, the Assessing Officer shall extend due opportunity of personal hearing to the Assessees/Representatives, if necessary http://www.judis.nic.inthrough Video Conferencing and endeavor to conclude the 5 assessment proceedings independently and not being influenced by any of the reports or proposals of the Enforcement Wing /ISIC authorities. Such an exercise shall be completed atleast within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the objections. In case, if the objections are not received within the date of expiry of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the Assessing Officer shall commence the assessment proceedings, after the expiry of the 30 days indicated above.
6. With the above observations and directions, all the Writ Petitions stand thus allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
30.09.2020 Index:Yes/No Order: Speaking/Non-speaking DP To The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Broadway Assessment Circle, 199, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai-600 001.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6 M.S.RAMESH.J, DP COMMON ORDER MADE IN W.P.Nos.22749 to 22753 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.19441 to 19445 of 2016 30.09.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in