Revision assessment demands independent enquiry and notice before finalisation; identical orders were set aside and remanded.

A revision assessment under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act based on enforcement material and other-end dealer information requires the assessing authority to issue notice, consider objections, and conduct an independent enquiry before finalising the demand. Because the impugned orders arose from the same inspection and identical facts as an earlier assessment already set aside on that ground, they were also set aside and remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The Court further accepted the explanation for approaching later, supported by postal tracking material, and rejected the objection of delay and laches.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned assessment orders, which arose from the same inspection and identical facts as an earlier assessment order already set aside, warranted interference and remand for fresh consideration; (ii) whether the petitioner could be faulted for delay and laches in approaching the Court.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned assessment orders, which arose from the same inspection and identical facts as an earlier assessment order already set aside, warranted interference and remand for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The assessment was in the nature of a revision of assessment under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and the earlier writ petition concerning the assessment for the immediately preceding year had already been allowed on the ground that the Assessing Officer had to issue notice, consider objections, and conduct an enquiry instead of acting merely on the Enforcement Wing report. Since the present orders arose from the same inspection and involved identical reasoning, the earlier decision was held to govern these matters as well.

Conclusion: The impugned assessment orders were set aside and the matters were remanded for fresh consideration and re assessment in accordance with law.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner could be faulted for delay and laches in approaching the Court.

Analysis: The Court accepted the petitioner's explanation that the orders were received only later, as supported by postal tracking material, and held that the writ petitions were not barred by delay.

Conclusion: The objection of delay and laches was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were allowed with a direction for the authority to conduct a fresh enquiry, give notice to the petitioner and the other end dealers through the respective assessing officers, and redo the assessments in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a revision assessment is proposed on the basis of information from other end dealers or enforcement material, the assessing authority must issue notice, consider objections, and conduct an independent enquiry before finalising the assessment.

---