Court remands matter for fresh consideration, emphasizes fair personal hearing & evidence review in tax assessment decisions.

The court remanded the matter back to the first respondent for fresh consideration, directing a personal hearing for the petitioner to submit relevant documents to rectify the TIN Number discrepancy. The first respondent was instructed to pass orders after considering the submissions, emphasizing the importance of a fair opportunity for a personal hearing and review of evidence in tax assessment decisions. The writ petitions were disposed of without costs, underscoring the significance of due process in tax assessments.

---

---

Issues: Assessment based on discrepancy in supplier's PIN Number, denial of personal hearing, issuance of clarification post-assessment, remand for fresh consideration.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, procured goods from the second respondent. The impugned assessment orders were passed due to a discrepancy in the PIN Number of the supplier. The petitioner raised various grounds challenging the assessment, but the court deemed them unsuitable for adjudication in a writ petition.

2. The petitioner had stated in response to a show-cause notice that they possessed original bills to rectify the mismatched entries. Despite this, no personal hearing was granted as the petitioner did not request one. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued a clarification regarding the TIN Number mismatch, but this was done after the assessment order was passed.

3. The court observed that since the assessment was based on the mismatched entries, the petitioner should have the opportunity for a personal hearing to present the clarification issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Therefore, the court remanded the matter back to the first respondent for fresh consideration.

4. The first respondent was directed to notify the petitioner for a personal hearing and provide an opportunity to submit all relevant documents to prove the TIN Number discrepancy was a genuine mistake. After considering the petitioner's submissions, the first respondent was instructed to pass orders in accordance with the law.

5. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed without any costs being imposed. The judgment highlights the importance of providing a fair opportunity for a personal hearing and considering all relevant evidence before making an assessment decision under the tax laws.

---