Prior permission for assessment amendment is only an administrative safeguard; hearing is required before tax enhancement, not at sanction stage.

Section 29(7) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was upheld as constitutional because the dealer's hearing is required at the stage of amendment of assessment, not at the stage of the Commissioner's prior permission. The prior approval operates as an administrative safeguard rather than a quasi-judicial determination, and Rule 49 validly requires notice, hearing, and enquiry before any enhancement of tax is made. The court concluded that the statutory scheme preserves natural justice in the amendment proceedings, so the Commissioner's approval and the consequential notices were not invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 29(7) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 is unconstitutional for not providing a hearing before prior permission is granted by the Commissioner, and whether the approval and consequential notices for amendment of assessment are invalid.

Analysis: Section 29(7) permits amendment of an assessment within the prescribed period with the Commissioner's prior permission, but the statute itself requires an opportunity of hearing before the assessment is amended. Rule 49 of the Punjab VAT Rules is consistent with that scheme and requires notice of the proposed amendment, hearing of the affected person, and enquiry before any enhancement of tax is made. The prior permission of the Commissioner is only an administrative safeguard and is not a quasi-judicial determination requiring pre-decisional hearing. The dealer's hearing is protected at the stage of amendment proceedings, and the cited authorities on natural justice do not apply to the grant of sanction or approval itself.

Conclusion: Section 29(7) is valid and the approval granted by the Commissioner, along with the consequential notices, is not bad in law.

---