Compensation if natural justice is deliberately denied in a quasi judicial proceeding

Allahabad High Court, Court No. - 03 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 723 of 2022 Petitioner :- S R Cold Storage Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Other

Submissions on behalf of the petitioner:- 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to own admission of the respondents, information on the basis of which proceeding under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was sought to be initiated was totally unfounded and yet the misleading counter affidavits have been filed by them. The assessee has been harassed continuously by the respondents. The National Faceless Assessment Center is total failure and insight portal of the department has been made to cause harassment to the assessees. The information collected on the insight portal of the department is not correct. Even reply of the assessee has not been considered at all by the Assessing Officer. In the re-assessment order, despite every material placed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer-respondent no.4, there is no whisper in the re-assessment order about consideration of the reply. The entire proceedings under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the assessee is wholly without jurisdiction and the result of arbitrary exercise of power and gross abuse of power. In fact the initation of the proceedings and passing of the impugned reassessment order, is a glaring example of conscious and deliberate abuse of the powers by the respondents in the name of faceless assessment procedure. Practically the assessees are not being heard at all and they are not in a position to place and demonstrate their stand and to support it by documentary evidences, as available with them. This Court passed a detailed order dated 26.05.2022 and yet the respondents-authorities have no fear of law and are still trying to justify their action while at the same time admitting the information to be not correct. By 2 order dated 30.05.2022 this Court required the respondents to show cause as to why exemplary cost may not be imposed upon them and yet no cause has been shown in their respective counter affidavits filed before this Court. He submits that the writ petition may be allowed with exemplary cost and accountability of the officer may be fixed so that there may be some check on arbitrary exercise of power and abuse of power by the respondents and transparency in the assessment process may be ensured.

This case prima facie shows high handedness and arbitrary exercises of powers by the respondents including the National Faceless Assessment Centre who are not ready to adhere to the basic principles of law and justice. An addition of Rs.13,67,24,000/- has been made in the income of the petitioner for the A.Y. 2017-18 without there being any material disclosing escapement of income by the petitioner. The petitioner has been continuously bringing it to the notice of the respondents that he has not deposited any amount in his bank account i.e. Bank of Baroda and also filed copy of the bank account, a copy of which has also been filed along with supplementary affidavit; and yet the respondents have made addition of Rs. 13,67,24,000/-. Basic principles of rule of law and justice has been deliberately denied to the assessee by the respondents. This prima facie shows conscious attempt to cause serious harassment to the assessee for reasons best known to the respondents. We are frequently coming across orders passed by the respondents including the National Faceless Assessment Centre which show that the respondents have made up their mind to act arbitrarily and not to adhere to the settled principles of law including natural justice and are passing reassessment orders in a whimsical manner. 

Such prevailing situation causing serious prejudice to the assessees and flagrant violation of basic principles of law by the respondents, needs to be arrested at the earliest. Under the circumstances we direct the respondents to file a counter affidavit and show cause as to why exemplary cost in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Ors. vs. M/s Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Limited & Anr. (Special Leave to Appeal No.21132 of 2021, decided on 12.01.2022, be not imposed.

.....

Thus, the reason to believe for initiating proceedings under Section 147/148 was totally unfounded and false. In fact initiation of proceedings and passing the impugned reassessment order dated 31.03.2022 is a glaring example of highhandedness, arbitrary actions and abuse of power by the respondents on the one hand and on the other hand, flagrant violation of principles of natural justice by them

Natural Justice:- 23. In paragraphs 27 and 28 of the writ petition, the petitioner has specifically stated that it exercised its right to be heard in the matter by 15 requesting for a hearing through video conferencing within the time stipulated by the respondents-authorities yet even opportunity of hearing through video conferencing was denied. In support of its submissions, it also filed a screen shot asking for hearing through video conferencing which has been annexed as Annexure 12 of the writ petition. The respondent No.4 has not denied the contents of paragraphs 27 and 28 while replying it in paragraph 15 of his counter affidavit dated 23.07.2022. The reasons assigned by him is that the limitation was going to expire on 31.03.2022. The show cause notice was issued by the respondent No.4 on 25.03.2022, the assessee submitted its reply on 25.03.2022 itself and requested for hearing on 26.03.2022. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the respondent No.4 can be permitted to take the stand that it denied the opportunity of personal hearing through video conferencing for reason that the limitation was going on to expire on 31.03.2022. In fact, the approach of the respondent No.4 itself proves arbitrary exercise of powers and denial of principles of natural justice by him. 24. In the case of Uma Nath Pandey & Ors. vs State of U.P.& Anr. [(2009) 12 SCC page 40 para 3], Hon'ble Supreme Court noted the concept of natural justice and observed that it is another name of common sense justice. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. 25. The first and foremost principle of natural justice is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should appraise the party determinatively the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the 16 case before any adverse order is passed against him. It is an approved rule of fair play. 26. The principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the Courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice. Even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be consistent with the rules of natural justice. 27. Expression `civil consequences' encompasses infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil liberties, material deprivations, and non-pecuniary damages. In its wide umbrella comes everything that affects a citizen in his civil life. 28. Natural justice has been variously defined by different Judges, for instance a duty to act fairly, the substantial requirements of justice, the natural sense of what is right and wrong, fundamental justice and fair-play in action. Over the years by a process of judicial interpretation two rules have been evolved as representing the principles of natural justice in judicial process, including therein quasi-judicial and administrative process. They constitute the basic elements of a fair hearing, having their roots in the innate sense of man for fair-play and justice which is not the preserve of any particular race or country but is shared in common by all men. The first rule is `nemo judex in causa sua' or `nemo debet esse judex in propria causa sua' that is no man shall be a judge in his own cause. The second rule is `audi alteram partem', that is, `hear the other side'. A corollary has been deduced from the above two rules and particularly the audi alteram partem rule i.e. 'he who shall decide anything without the other side having been heard, although he may have said what is right, will not have been what is right' or in other words, as it is now expressed, `justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done'. Natural justice is the essence of fair adjudication, deeply rooted in tradition and 17 conscience, to be ranked as fundamental. The purpose of following the principles of natural justice is the prevention of miscarriage of justice.

Order without valid reasons - unsustainable:- 29. In the case of M/s. Hindustan Steels Ltd. Rourkela Vs. A.K. Roy and others, (1969) 3 SCC 513, Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para 16 as under : "12. On a consideration of all the circumstances, the present case, in our view, was one such case. The Tribunal exercised its discretion mechanically without weighing the circumstances of the case. That was no exercise of discretion -at all. There is ample authority to the effect that if a statutory tribunal exercises its discretion on the basis of irrelevant considerations or without regard to relevant considerations, certiorari may properly issue to quash its order. [See S.A. de Smith, Judicial Review of Administrative Action, (2nd ed.) 324-325]. One such relevant consideration, the disregard of which would render its order amenable to interference, would be the well- settled principles laid down in decisions binding on the tribunal to whom the discretion is entrusted. The refusal by the High Court to interfere was equally mechanical and amounted to refusal to exercise, its jurisdiction. Its order, therefore, becomes liable to interference." (Emphasis supplied by us) 30. In the case of Omar Salay Mohd. Sait Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, AIR 1959 SC 1238, Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para 42 as under : "42. We are aware that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is a fact finding Tribunal and if it arrives at its own conclusions of fact after due consideration of the evidence before it this court will not interfere. It is necessary, however, that every fact for and against the assessee must have been considered with due care and the Tribunal must have given its finding in a manner which would clearly indicate what were the questions which arose for determination, what was the evidence pro and contra in regard to each one of them and what were was the reached on the evidence on record before it. The conclusions reached by the Tribunal should not be coloured by any irrelevant considerations or matters of prejudice and if there are any circumstances which required to be explained by the assessee, the assessee should be given an opportunity of doing so. On no account whatever should the Tribunal base its findings on suspicions, conjectures or surmises nor should it act on no evidence at all or on improper rejection of material and relevant evidence or partly on evidence and partly on suspicions, conjectures or surmises and if it does anything of the sort, its findings, even though on questions of fact, will be liable to be set aside by this court." 18 31. In the case of Udhav Das Kewat Ram Vs. CIT 1967 (66) ITR 462, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Tribunal must consider with due care all material facts and record its findings on all contentions raised before it and the relevant law. 32. An order without valid reasons cannot be sustained. To give reasons is the rule of natural justice. Highlighting this rule, Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of The Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and ors., JT 2010(2)SC 566 para 31 to 33 as under : "31. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the Court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the Court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of an order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration justice - delivery system, to make known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the Court and also as an essential requisite of principles of natural justice. The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before Courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the Court concerned had really applied its mind. " " [Vide State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar (JT 2004(2) SC 172 and State of Rajasthan Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. JT 2004 (5) SCC 338:2004 (5) SCC 573]. 32. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, it becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Absence of reasons renders the order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. [Vide Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. AIR 2003 SC 4664; Vishnu Dev Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 172; Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela I Circle & Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 407; State of Uttaranchal & Anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi AIR 2008 SC 2026; U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta AIR 2009 SC 2328; Ram Phal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 258; Mohammed Yusuf Vs. Faij Mohammad & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 513; and State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sada Ram & Anr. (2009) 4 SCC 422]. 33.Thus, it is evident that the recording of reasons is principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person 23 who is adversely affected may know, as why his application has been rejected.” (Emphasis supplied by us) 33. Non recording of reasons, non consideration of admissible evidence or consideration of inadmissible evidence renders the order to be unsustainable. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandana Impex Pvt. 19 Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi , 2011(269)E.L.T. 433 (S.C.)(para 8) held as under : "8. Having bestowed our anxious consideration on the facts at hand, we are of the opinion that there is some merit in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that while dealing with an appeal under Section 130 of the Act, the High Court should have examined each question formulated in the appeal with reference to the material taken into consideration by the Tribunal in support of its finding thereon and given its reasons for holding that question is not a substantial question of law. It needs to be emphasised that every litigant, who approaches the court for relief is entitled to know the reason for acceptance or rejection of his prayer, particularly when either of the parties to the lis has a right of further appeal. Unless the litigant is made aware of the reasons which weighed with the court in denying him the relief prayed for, the remedy of appeal will not be meaningful. It is that reasoning, which can be subjected to examination at the higher forums. In State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar2 this Court, while reiterating that reason is the heart beat of every conclusion and without the same, it becomes lifeless, observed thus : "8.......Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made;......." (Emphasis supplied by us) 34. In the present set of facts, we find that despite that material disclosed by the assessee before the respondent Nos.2 and 4 and despite specific stand taken by him that he has not deposited any cash amount in his bank account with Bank of Baroda what to say of Rs.13,67,24,000/-, the aforesaid respondents have neither considered the objection/ reply nor recorded any reasons for its rejection. Thus, right to reason which is an indispensable part of a judicial system, has been deliberately violated by the respondents.

Objection as to alternative remedy of appeal:- 35. Objection raised by the learned senior standing counsel for the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy, is not tenable on the facts of the present case. In the present set of facts, in the absence of any valid information for invoking jurisdiction under Section 147/ 148 of the Act, 1961, the entire proceedings are without jurisdiction. 20 Alternative remedy – when not bar:- 36. Article 226 of the Constitution of India confers very vide powers on High Courts to issue writs but this power is discretionary and the High Court may refuse to exercise the discretion if it is satisfied that the aggrieved person has adequate or suitable remedy elsewhere. It is a rule of discretion and not rule of compulsion or the rule of law. Even though there may be an alternative remedy, yet the High Court may entertain a writ petition depending upon the facts of each case. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down inflexible rule to be applied rigidly for entertaining a writ petition. Some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy as settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court are as under:- “(i) Where there is complete lack of jurisdiction in the officer or authority to take the action or to pass the order impugned. (ii) Where vires of an Act, Rules, Notification or any of its provisions has been challenged. (iii) Where an order prejudicial to the writ petitioner has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. (iv) Where enforcement of any fundamental right is sought by the petitioner. (v) Where procedure required for decision has not been adopted. (vi) Where Tax is levied without authority of law. (vii) Where decision is an abuse of process of law. (viii) Where palpable injustice shall be caused to the petitioner, if he is forced to adopt remedies under the statute for enforcement of any fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. (ix) Where a decision or policy decision has already been taken by the Government rendering the remedy of appeal to be an empty formality or futile attempt. (x) Where there is no factual dispute but merely a pure question of law or interpretation is involved.” 37. The above principles are supported by law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Himmatlal Harilal Mehta v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 403, Collector of Customs v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani, AIR 1961 SC 1506, Collector Of Customs & Excise ,Cochin & Ors. vs A. S. Bava, AIR 1968 SC 13, Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta vs Management Of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, L.K. Verma v. HMT Ltd. and anr., (2006) 2 SCC 269, Paras 13 and 20, M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Jahan Khan (2007) 10 SCC 88 para 12, Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others 21 (2007) 8 SCC 338, BCPP Mazdoor Sangh Vs. NTPC (2007) 14 SCC 234 (para 19), Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Union of India, (2008) 5 SCC 632 (para 3), Mumtaz Post Graduate Degree College Vs. University of Lucknow,(2009) 2 SCC 630 (para 22 and 23), Godrej Sara Lee Limited v. Assistant Commissioner (AA), (2009) 14 SCC 338. 14, Union of India v. Mangal Textile Mills (I) (P) Ltd., (2010) 14 SCC 553 (paras 6,7,10 and 12), Union of India v. Tantia Construction (P) Ltd., (2011) 5 SCC 697, Southern Electricity Supply Co. of Orissa Ltd. v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, (2012) 2 SCC 108 (paras 79,80,81,82,86,87 and 88), State of M.P. Vs. Sanjay Nagaich (2013) 7 SCC 25 (para 34,35,38,39), State of H.P. vs. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 499 (para 11 to 19), Star Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others, JT (2006) 12 SC 92, State of Tripura vs. Manoranjan Chakraborty, (2001) 10 SCC 740 para 4; Paradip Port Trust vs Sales Tax Officer and Ors. (1998) 4 SCC 90, Feldohf Auto & Gas Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (1998) 9 SCC 710; Isha Beebi Vs. Tax Recovery Officer (1976) 1 SCC 70 (para 5); Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trademarks (1998) 8 SCC 1; Guruvayur Devasworn Managing Committee Vs C.K. Rajan (2003) 7 SCC 546 (para 67,68) . 38. In the case of State of Tripura vs. Manoranjan Chakraborty, (2001) 10 SCC 740, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "4. For the reasons contained in the said decisions, we hold that the impugned provisions are valid. It is, of course, clear that if gross injustice is done and it can be shown that for good reason the court should interfere, then notwithstanding the alternative remedy which may be available by way of an appeal under Section 20 or revision under Section 21, a writ court can in an appropriate case exercise its jurisdiction to do substantive justice. Normally of course the provisions of the Act would have to be complied with, but the availability of the writ jurisdiction should dispel any doubt which a citizen has against a high-handed or palpable illegal order which may be passed by the assessing authority." (Emphasis supplied by us)

Abuse of Power:- 40. It is settled law that if a public functionary acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but its abuse. No law provides protection against it. Harassment by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible which causes more serious injury to society. In modern society no authority can arrogate to itself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary. 41. In a recent judgment dated 03.08.2022 in Writ Tax No.997 of 2022, this Court noticing increasing tendency amongst Assessing Officers, particularly the respondent No.4, i.e. National Faceless Assessment Centre to violate principles of natural justice, non-consideration of replies of assessees under one pretext or the other or rejecting it without recording reasons for rejection and thus expressed the need for evolving an effective system of accountability of erreing officers and held in paragraphs 6 and 7, as under: “6. We are frequently coming across cases where Income Tax Authorities are giving complete go by to the principles of natural justice. The excuse orally being set up usually by the departmental counsels is that there is some problem in the computerisation system which is solely controlled by the respondent no.1 23 i.e. the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, and they can not, at their own, correct the system. 7. Be as it may, the system has been introduced and is being implemented by the respondents and, therefore, it is their primary duty to immediately remove short comings, if any, in the system. For own wrongs of the respondents, the assessee can not be allowed to suffer and put to harassment. Prevailing state of affairs clearly reflects that in the absence of any effective system of accountability of the erring officers, the harassment of the assessees and breach of principles of natural justice by the Officers is resulting in uncontrolled situation. The practice of frequently violating principles of natural justice, non consideration of replies of assessees under one pretext or the other or rejecting it with one or two lines orders without recording reasons for rejection, is gradually increasing which needs to be taken care of immediately by the respondents at the highest level, otherwise prevailing situation of arbitrary approach and breach of principles of natural justice may not only adversely affect the assessees who pay revenue to the Government, but also may develop a perception amongst people/assessees that it is difficult to get justice from the authorities in statutory proceedings.”

Quasi-Judicial Function:- 47. In State of H.P. vs. Raja Mahendra Pal and others, (1999) 4 SCC 43 (Paras-8 and 9), Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the quasi-judicial acts and observed that these acts are such acts which mandate an officer the duty of looking into certain facts not in a way which it specially directs but after a discretion, in its nature justicial. The exercise of power by such tribunal or authority contemplates the adjudication of rival claims of the persons by an act of the mind or judgment upon the proposed course of official action. A quasi-judicial function has been termed to be one which stands midway a judicial and an administrative function. The primary test is as to whether the authority alleged to be a quasi-judicial, has any express statutory duty to act judicially in arriving at the decision in question. If the reply is in affirmative, the authority would be deemed to be quasijudicial, and if the reply is in the negative, it would not be. Therefore, an authority is described as a quasi-judicial when it has some of the attributes or trappings of judicial functions, but not all. In Province of Bombay vs. Khusaldas S. Advani, AIR 1950 SC 222, Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with the actions of the statutory body and laid down tests for ascertaining 26 whether the action taken by such body was a quasi-judicial act or an administrative act. The Court approved the celebrated definition of the quasi-judicial body given by Atkin L.J,, as he then was in R. Vs. Electricity Commissioners (1924) 1 KB 171 : (1924) 130 LT 164. The principles deducible from the various judicial decisions considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court were summarized in the case of Raja Mahendra Pal (supra), as under:- "(i) that if a statute empowers an authority, not being a Court in the ordinary sense, to decide disputes arising out of a claim made by one party under the statute which claim is opposed by another party and to determine the respective rights of the contesting parties who are opposed to each other there is a lis and prima fade and in the absence of anything in the statute to the contrary it is the duty of the authority to act judicially and the decision of the authority is a quasi judicial act; and (ii) that if a statutory authority has power to do any act, which will prejudicially affect the subject, then, although there are not two parties apart from the authority and the contest is between the authority proposing to do the act and the subject opposing it, the final determination of the authority will yet be a quasi judicial act provided the authority is required by the statute to act judicially." 48. In the case of Orient Paper Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India, (1970) 3 SCC 76 (paras-4 and 5), Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the duty cast upon an authority while exercising quasi-judicial function and held as under: “It is apparent from the judgment referred to above and numerous other decisions of this Court delivered in respect of various taxation laws that the assessing authorities exercise quasi-judicial function and they have duty cast on them to act in a judicial and independent manner. If their judgment is controlled by the directions given by the Collector it cannot be said to be their independent judgment in any sense of the word. ..........................” (Emphasis supplied by us) 49. In the case of Nareshbhai Bhagubhai and others vs. Union of India and others, (2019) 15 SCC 1, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that necessary requirement of quasi-judicial function is to pass a reasoned order after due application of mind. It further held as under: “21. In the present case, it is the undisputed position that no order as contemplated in the eyes of law was passed by the Competent Authority in deciding the objections raised by the Appellants. A statutory authority discharging a quasi-judicial function is required to pass a reasoned order after due application of mind. In Laxmi Devi v. State of Bihar, (2015) 10 SCC 241, this Court held that: 27 “9. The importance of Section 5-A cannot be overemphasised. It is conceived from natural justice and has matured into manhood in the maxim of audi alteram partem i.e. every person likely to be adversely affected by a decision must be granted a meaningful opportunity of being heard. This right cannot be taken away by a side wind, as so powerfully and pellucidly stated in Nandeshwar Prasad v. State of U.P. [AIR 1964 SC 1217]. So stringent is this right that it mandates that the person who heard and considered the objections can alone decide them; and not even his successor is competent to do so even on the basis of the materials collected by his predecessor. Furthermore, the decision on the objections should be available in a self-contained, speaking and reasoned order; reasons cannot be added to it later as that would be akin to putting old wine in new bottles. We can do no better than commend a careful perusal of Union of India v. Shiv Raj, (2014) 6 SCC 564, on these as well as cognate considerations.” 50. In Union of India and others vs. Karvy Stock Broking Limited, (2019) 11 SCC 631, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “2. This Circular dated 5-11-2003 has been set aside by the High Court in the impugned judgment, Karvy Securities Ltd. v. Union of India, 2004 SCC OnLine AP 1313 on the ground that it amounts to foreclosing discretion or judgment that may be exercised by the quasi-judicial authority while deciding a particular lis under particular circumstances. The High Court referred to the proviso to Section 37-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which categorically states that such kind of circulars cannot be issued. We, thus, do not find any error in the impugned judgment. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 51. In Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla vs. Greenworld Corporation Parwanoo, (2009) 7 SCC 69, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an order passed by quasi-judicial authorities on the dictates of the higher authority is illegal and being without jurisdiction, is a nullity. Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that an Income Tax Officer while passing an order of assessment, performs a quasi-judicial function. Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that it is one thing to say that while making the orders of assessment the Assessing Officer shall be bound by the statutory circulars issued by CBDT but it is another thing to say that the assessing authority exercising quasi-judicial function keeping in view the scheme contained in the Act, would lose its independence to pass an independent order of assessment. If the Assessing Officer passes an order at the instance or dictate of the higher authority, it shall be illegal.