The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the assessing officer to apply an independent mind and adhere to the principles of judicial discipline in assessment proceedings.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: W.P.No.11486 of 2019: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned notice dated 18.03.2019 passed in TIN/33641521427/2015-16 issued by the respondent and quash the same.

W.P.No.11494 of 2019: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to refund an amount of Rs.85,88,662/- along with applicable interest as requested by the petitioner in their letters dated 11.01.2017 and 20.02.2017.)

Common Order:

1. Heard Mr.L.Gokul Raj, learned counsel representing Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan, learned counsel on record for the petitioner and Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate for the respondent.

2.This common order disposes both Writ Petitions filed by the petitioner, W.P.No.11486 of 2019 challenging a notice issued by the respondent dated 18.03.2019 and W.P.No.11494 of 2019 seeking a mandamus directing the respondent to refund an amount of Rs.85,88,662/- with interest as requested by the petitioner under letters dated 11.01.2017 and 20.02.2017.

3.The assessment in this case was framed on 30.09.2016 for the period 2015-2016 in terms of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (in short 'TNVAT Act'). As against the assessment, the petitioner has filed a first appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Chennai Central by paying the statutory pre-deposit of 25% of the disputed tax.

4.An order came to be passed by the First Appellate Authority on 08.12.2016, wherein, he remands the matter to the file of the Assessing Authority. A perusal of the order of the first Appellate Authority indicates that he was of the view that the assessment was not framed in proper perspective. There had been a visit/inspection by the enforcement based upon which the original assessment dated 30.09.2016 had been framed.

5. The appellate authority was of the view that there was undue and disproportionate reliance upon the report/proposals of the enforcement authorities and not enough independent application of mind by the authority. While an assessing officer is certainly entitled to refer to the findings and observations of the enforcement authorities, the finalisation of the assessment must be on his own initiative and application of mind.

6. The assessment must be a function of the independent labour of the assessing officer rather than containing mere reference to the materials found by enforcement and their conclusions. This is the correct position of law as settled by this Court in the cases of Jayalakshmi Oil Mills Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu [(2013) 58 VST 535] and Sri Ramu Furniture Co. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu [(2013) 57 VST 383] and S.V.Cycles Stores Vs. Commercial Tax Officer [(2011) 46 VST 565].

7. The order of the appellate authority is detailed and the operative portion reads thus:

“19. It is perceptible from the impugned order that the assessing authority had passed the impugned order influenced by the Enforcement Officers report without considering the objections and the materials filed by the appellant. The assessing authority being a quasi judicial authority ought to have scrutinized the objections carefully and in proper perspective uninfluenced by the Enforcement Officers audit report as held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in S.Shivji and Co., vs. Joint Commercial Tax Officer reported in (1965) 16 STC 769. In State of Tamil Nadu vs. A.N.S. Guptha and Sons reported in (2011) 38 VST 45 (Mad.), the Hon'ble Madras High Court has held as follows:

"We are completely in agreement that the assessment proceedings arc quasi judicial in nature and therefore, the assessing authority has an independent y carefully scrutinize the materials for assessment and satisfy himself thoroughly, uninfluenced by any direction of superior officers and assess the tax payable on that basis. In the present case, as rightly pointed out by the Tr