Reassessment and natural justice: earlier self-assessment did not bar reopening, but lack of personal hearing invalidated the order.

An earlier self-assessment under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act did not, by itself, bar reassessment of the same turnover where the record showed that the turnover had not attained finality. The challenge on that ground therefore failed. However, the reassessment order was unsustainable because no personal hearing was granted before it was passed, despite written objections having been filed. That denial of a reasonable opportunity violated natural justice, so the reassessment order and the consequential penalty notice were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the dealer.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment could be sustained on the ground that an earlier self-assessment had attained finality and barred reopening of the turnover for the same assessment year; (ii) Whether the reassessment order and the consequential penalty notice were vitiated for want of personal hearing.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment could be sustained on the ground that an earlier self-assessment had attained finality and barred reopening of the turnover for the same assessment year.

Analysis: The earlier assessment was found to be a self-assessment under Section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. It did not refer to the prior show-cause proceedings, and the materials showed that the dealer's turnover for the relevant year had not attained finality. The mere existence of the earlier self-assessment order, therefore, did not create an embargo against initiation of the later proceedings.

Conclusion: The challenge based on alleged finality of the earlier assessment failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment order and the consequential penalty notice were vitiated for want of personal hearing.

Analysis: Although the authority referred to the dealer's written objection, no opportunity of personal hearing had been afforded before passing the reassessment order. The absence of such hearing amounted to denial of a reasonable opportunity to present the case and rendered the order unsustainable on that ground.

Conclusion: The reassessment order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after affording personal hearing; the penalty notice also could not survive.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were allowed in favour of the dealer, with the assessment set aside and the matter sent back for reconsideration in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment cannot be interfered with merely because an earlier self-assessment exists unless the earlier determination has attained finality, but any such reassessment must comply with natural justice by granting a reasonable personal hearing.

---