Fair hearing in tax assessment requires notice before departing from an audit report; writ relief was allowed despite appeal remedy.

An assessment under the sales tax audit-report framework was vitiated because the assessing authority departed from the assessee's claim without first issuing notice or giving an opportunity to object. The Court held that when the authority proposes to dispute or modify the assessee's return, fair hearing requires notice and an opportunity to place supporting material; the unsignalled deviation made the assessment unsustainable and it was quashed. Although an appellate remedy existed, the procedural defect justified writ intervention because the validity of the assessment process itself was in issue. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration after allowing objections.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment order was liable to be interfered with for want of notice and opportunity before deviating from the assessee's audit report, and whether the existence of an appellate remedy barred writ relief.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment order was liable to be interfered with for want of notice and opportunity before deviating from the assessee's audit report.

Analysis: The assessment was made under the sales tax framework governing audit reports, under which the assessing authority could accept the assessee's statement by passing a formal order. If the authority proposed to dispute or modify the assessee's claim, the assessee was entitled to a notice and an opportunity to place material in support of the claim. The impugned order did not accept the audit report in toto and yet was passed without issuing notice or calling for objections. That procedure was held to be inconsistent with the requirement of fair hearing.

Conclusion: The assessment order was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the existence of an appellate remedy barred writ relief.

Analysis: Although an alternative statutory remedy was available, the absence of notice and the resulting procedural defect justified intervention under writ jurisdiction. The Court also treated the delayed approach as insufficient to decline relief in the circumstances, since the core defect went to the validity of the assessment process itself.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the assessee was entitled to relief despite the alternative remedy.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was quashed, the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after permitting objections, and the assessee received partial substantive relief subject to further adjudication by the assessing authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessing authority departs from an assessee's audit report or claimed exemption without first giving notice and an opportunity to respond, the assessment is vitiated by procedural unfairness and may be interfered with in writ jurisdiction notwithstanding the availability of an appellate remedy.

---