Premature writ challenge to VAT notice rejected where authorised officer could consider objections on merits.

A writ challenge to a VAT notice was found premature because the notice only called for objections with supporting documents, and the petitioner had not used that opportunity. The Madras HC noted that the definition of "assessing authority" under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 permits an officer authorised by the Government or the Commissioner to act, and the notice on its face showed the first respondent as such an authorised officer. The threshold challenge to the officer's authority was therefore rejected, and the petitioner was directed to submit objections before the competent authority for consideration on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the impugned notice was liable to be interfered with, and whether the first respondent lacked authority to issue the notice under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

Analysis: The notice called upon the petitioner to furnish objections with documentary evidence, and the petitioner approached the Court without availing that opportunity. The definition of assessing authority under Section 2(5) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 shows that a person authorised by the Government or the Commissioner can make assessment under the Act. On the face of the notice, the first respondent was shown as an authorised officer competent to act. In these circumstances, the challenge to the notice at the threshold was not warranted, and the petitioner was required to place objections before the competent authority.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable at the stage of notice, and the challenge to the notice was rejected. The petitioner was directed to submit objections before the competent assessing authority, which was to consider them on merits.

---