Court emphasizes procedural fairness in tax assessment case, remits for personal hearing.

The court rejected the petitioner's jurisdictional challenge regarding the revision of assessment order for the assessment year 2005-06, stating that detailed examination of documents was necessary. However, in response to the lack of opportunity for a personal hearing, the court emphasized procedural fairness and natural justice. The court remitted the matter back to the respondent, instructing them to provide the petitioner with a personal hearing within two weeks and to pass further orders within four weeks after the hearing. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction, highlighting the importance of fairness in tax assessment procedures.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to the order of revision of assessment for the assessment year 2005-06 based on jurisdiction and lack of opportunity of personal hearing.

Jurisdiction Issue Analysis:
The petitioner contended that the authority had no jurisdiction to revise the assessment order as the registered office and branch office should not be treated as separate entities for tax purposes. Additionally, the petitioner argued that the export sale by the branch office should not be considered a sale to the registered office. The court noted that to decide jurisdiction, detailed examination of documents was necessary, which could not be done in a writ petition. The court rejected the first contention, stating that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner was to approach the Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Tax) in Virudhunagar.

Opportunity of Personal Hearing Issue Analysis:
The petitioner raised a second contention regarding the lack of an opportunity for a personal hearing. The dealer had requested a personal hearing after submitting interim objections, but the final order was passed without granting this request. The court emphasized the importance of fairness in procedure and principles of natural justice, especially in cases involving complex facts like revision of assessment. Despite not setting aside the revision order, the court decided to remit the matter back to the respondent to provide the petitioner with a personal hearing within two weeks. The petitioner was instructed to present all relevant documents, and the respondent was directed to pass further orders within four weeks after the hearing.

In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with the direction to afford the petitioner a personal hearing, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and natural justice in matters of tax assessment.

---