AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J.—This writ appeal is directed against the order passed in W.P. No. 8608 of 1997. The writ petition has been filed
against the pre-assessment notice issued by the second respondent in the writ petition. The learned Judge, who heard the writ petition, thought fit
to dismiss the writ petition. It is against that order, the present writ appeal has been filed by writ petitioner.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that despite opportunity having been given to submit explanations of the appellant, such
explanation would not serve any purpose, as according to the appellant, the officer has already made up his mind regarding the extent of
assessment and, therefore, the proposal should be set aside. We cannot subscribe to this submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
The assessing officer made the proposal to tax the turnovers according to his estimates. Opportunity was given to the assessee to explain and
contest the proposal. Instead of contesting the same, the assessee approached this Court for setting aside the proposal. Under the taxing statute,
when a remedy is provided under the Act, it is not possible for this Court to take the power of the assessing officer in the matter of levying of tax.
In such circumstances, we see no infirmity in the order passed by the learned single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. We direct the appellant
herein to appear before the assessing authority and explain as to how the proposals made by the assessing authority is not sustainable.
With this observation, the writ appeal is dismissed. C.M.P. is also dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that some more time may be given for appearing before the assessing authority. Considering the fact
that the writ petition was pending, we direct the appellant-assessee to appear before the assessing officer and submit his explanation in three weeks
from the date of this order.
Writ appeal dismissed.