Statutory tax clarifications can bind departmental officers without violating natural justice if quasi-judicial independence is preserved.

Section 28-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was analysed as a clarification mechanism serving two functions: dealer-initiated clarifications based on materials furnished by the dealer, and suo motu clarifications for administrative uniformity without prior hearing. The provision was read as binding departmental officers within the hierarchy, but not as controlling quasi-judicial assessment or appellate discretion. Assessing and appellate authorities were required to decide on evidence, arguments, and binding precedent independently. On that construction, the provision was held not to violate natural justice or the Constitution, and the challenge to the clarification mechanism failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 28-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 is constitutionally valid, and whether clarifications issued thereunder bind the assessing and appellate authorities so as to invalidate the impugned revision notices.

Analysis: Section 28-A was construed as creating two distinct forms of clarification: one at the instance of a dealer and another suo motu for administrative uniformity. A dealer-initiated clarification was held to be based on materials placed by the dealer, while a suo motu clarification under sub-section (2) was held not to require prior hearing. Sub-section (3) was read as governing administrative obedience within the departmental hierarchy, but not as authorising interference with quasi-judicial assessment or appellate functions. The assessing officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were held to retain an independent duty to decide matters on the basis of the evidence, arguments, and binding judicial precedents, free from external dictation. The provision was therefore held not to offend natural justice or the Constitution.

Conclusion: Section 28-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 is valid and intra vires, and the impugned notices could not be quashed on the ground of invalidity of the provision.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the statutory clarification mechanism failed, while the assessees were left to pursue objections before the assessing authority within the time granted by the Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory clarification binding departmental officers does not infringe constitutional or natural justice requirements if quasi-judicial authorities remain free to exercise independent judgment on the merits.

---