Court sets aside assessment orders under TNVAT Act, citing procedural unfairness

The court allowed the writ petitions challenging assessment orders under the TNVAT Act, citing violations of natural justice principles. It was found that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the petitioner's objections and relevant documents, leading to procedural unfairness. The court noted discrepancies in the officer's claim of missing documents, directing a redo of the assessments for fair consideration of objections. The impugned orders were set aside, remanded for fresh review, requiring a personal hearing, clarifications, and a speaking order. No costs were awarded, and connected petitions were closed.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to assessment orders for multiple years under TNVAT Act based on violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer, challenged assessment orders for several years under the TNVAT Act, alleging violation of natural justice principles. The court noted that the petitioner's objections were not considered before passing the impugned assessment order. Despite the petitioner submitting objections with relevant documents, the Assessing Officer failed to acknowledge them, leading to a lack of fairness in the procedure. The court emphasized that failure to consider the dealer's objections would render the assessment proceedings a mere formality.

The court found that the Assessing Officer erroneously stated that the petitioner did not produce documents, despite evidence of documents being received by the respondent's office. The court held that all records were available to the respondents when passing the assessment order, indicating a procedural lapse in considering the dealer's submissions. Consequently, the court ruled that the impugned assessments needed to be redone to ensure a fair consideration of the petitioner's objections.

As a result, the writ petitions were allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The first respondent was directed to review the petitioner's objections along with enclosures, provide an opportunity for a personal hearing, seek clarifications if necessary, and issue a speaking order after redoing the assessment. The court concluded by stating that no costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

---