Madras High Court
A.H.Enterprises vs The Assistant Commissioner (Ct) ... on 8 September, 2020
Author: M.S. Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
W.P.No.22757 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 08.09.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
W.P.No.22757 of 2012
and
M.P.No.1 of 2012
A.H.Enterprises,
B 32/2, Anna Nagar (East)
Chennai-102
Rep by its Proprietrix,
Mrs.Thangam Meganathan …Petitioner
Vs.
The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Additional,
Aminjikarai Assessment Circle,
Chennai-108 …Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondent
in TNGST/1022185/2000-01 dated 29.05.2012 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ravee Kumar
for M/s. Maha Associates
For Respondent : Mr.R.Swarnavel
Government Advocate
1/7
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.22757 of 2012
ORDER
Today, the matter is listed through Video Conferencing. By consent of both the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.
2. One of the issues involved in the Writ Petition is that the impugned proceeding/notice 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 their higher authorities.
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 2/7 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.22757 of 2012 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 that the Audit report or Inspection proposals 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 3/7 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.22757 of 2012 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 Circular No.3 dated 18.01.2019 issued by the Commissioner of State Tax, Chennai, the impugned proceeding in this Writ Petition, which proceeds on the basis of the proposals/reports of the Enforcement Wing/ISIC, is set aside and consequently, the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessee is granted liberty to file his 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 Assessee/Representative, if necessary through Video 4/7 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.22757 of 2012 Conferencing and endeavor to conclude the assessment proceedings independently and not being influenced by any of the reports or proposals of the Enforcement/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, the present Writ Petition stands thus allowed. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
08.09.2020 Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no hvk To The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Additional, Aminjikarai Assessment Circle, 5/7 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.22757 of 2012 Chennai-108 6/7 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.22757 of 2012 M.S. RAMESH,J.
sbn/hvk W.P.No.22757 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 08.09.2020 7/7 http://www.judis.nic.in