This writ petition has been filed, seeking to quash the impugned notice dated 10.01.2017 passed by the respondent, by which, pre-revision notice was issued stating that reply given by the petitioner is an afterthought and not acceptable, with direction to file objections, if any along with necessary material documents within 15 days. The petitioner also sought a direction to the respondent to hold proper inquiry by giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as upon consideration of the entire documents.
2. The petitioner has submitted that based on the report given by the Enforcement Wing Officer, the respondent herein has issued the notice dated 14.01.2016 alleging various defects and omissions as well as the proposal for levy of penalty under Section 27(3) of TNVAT Act; that though no copy of audit report was furnished, the petitioner has duly submitted its preliminary reply and the petitioner was informed that before issuing an order of revision, they would be given sufficient opportunity of personal hearing, but to the shock and surprise, the impugned notice came to be issued without providing any opportunity of hearing the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed much reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Madras Granites (P) Ltd., vs. Commercial Tax Officer and another, reported in 2006 (146) STC 642 Mad, wherein it has been held as under:
?4....It is well-settled 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. We find that in both the matters the assessing officer has acted on the basis of the directions of his higher authority in completing the assessments. We hold that the assessments are not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the orders of assessment in both the matters are liable to be quashed and consequently, the orders of the Special Tribunal confirming the orders of assessment are also liable to be quashed. However, it is open to the assessing officer, viz., the first respondent herein, to pass orders of assessment afresh in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner. Both the writ petitions stand allowed.?
4. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader on the above submissions.
5. From the judgment cited by the petitioner, it is clear that the quasi judicial authority, while exercising his discretionary powers, has to apply his mind independently without adhering to the instructions or directions of the higher authorities. In the case on hand, the respondent has issued the impugned notice of pre-revision without hearing the petitioner, simply stating that the reply given by the petitioner was evasive and an afterthought and the notice might have been on the basis of the instructions or directions of his higher authority. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice dated 10.01.2017 of the respondent is set aside. The matter is remitted to the authority concerned for fresh consideration and the quasi judicial authority is directed to apply his mind independently and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, pass appropriate orders thereon, if so advised, in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To:
The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Kumbakonam-I Circle, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District..