Service of revision notice and entry tax on paver finisher disputed; reassessment ordered with hearing and interim protection.

Assessment under the TNVAT Act, 2006 for 2015-16 was challenged on the grounds of disputed service of revision notices and levy of entry tax on a paver finisher machine. The Court noted the absence of postal acknowledgment for the dispatched notices and referred to precedent that equipment not qualifying as a motor vehicle may fall outside entry tax liability. The assessment was therefore required to be reconsidered after giving the dealer an opportunity to file objections, produce supporting material, and be heard personally. The existing assessment was to be treated as a show cause notice, and coercive action was restrained until reassessment was completed in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revision notices preceding the assessment were duly served on the assessee; (ii) Whether the impugned assessment required reconsideration after examining the assessee's objection that the paver finisher machine was not a motor vehicle liable to entry tax.

Issue (i): Service of the revision notices was disputed. The despatch of notices by registered post was shown, but there was no postal acknowledgment card evidencing actual service on the assessee.

Conclusion: The notices could not be treated as duly served on the assessee.

Issue (ii): The assessment was challenged on the footing that the paver finisher machine was not a motor vehicle. The assessment was directed to be revisited after considering the assessee's objections, documents and brochures, and after inspection of the equipment if necessary, with an effective opportunity of personal hearing.

Conclusion: The assessment had to be redone after considering the assessee's objections.

Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back for fresh assessment after notice and hearing, and coercive steps were restrained until completion of that exercise.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment cannot be sustained where the pre-assessment notices are not shown to have been duly served, and the authority must afford an effective opportunity before redetermining liability.

---