Unfair Assessment Reversed for Violating Natural Justice Principles

The Court held that the impugned orders revising the assessment under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act violated Principles of Natural Justice by not providing the petitioner with a personal hearing. The Court directed the respondent to redo the assessment proceedings, emphasizing the importance of adherence to procedural requirements, issuance of notice for a personal hearing, and passing reasoned speaking orders. The impugned orders were deemed unsustainable in law due to the lack of justification for revising the assessment without affording the petitioner a fair opportunity to present their case.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging impugned proceedings by Commercial Tax Officer for revision of assessment under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice due to lack of personal hearing before passing final orders under Section 27 of the Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer in Automobiles, challenged the revision of assessment for the years 2010-2011 to 2014-2015 by the Commercial Tax Officer based on an inspection report. The petitioner maintained necessary records and submitted objections with purchase invoices to refute the allegations of turnover or tax escapement. Despite requests for one month to reconcile turnovers and grant a personal hearing, the impugned orders were passed without a hearing, violating Principles of Natural Justice.

The petitioner argued that the assessing officer is bound by quasi-judicial principles and should have provided a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing before passing final orders. Citing previous judgments emphasizing the importance of reasoned speaking orders and adherence to procedural requirements, the petitioner contended that the impugned orders lacked justification for revising the assessment and failed to follow mandatory provisions under the Act.

The Additional Government Pleader defended the orders but acknowledged the petitioner's requests for time and reconciliation. However, the failure to offer a personal hearing and the lack of notice for deciding the matter deprived the petitioner of a fair opportunity to present their case. Referring to precedents where assessments were quashed due to procedural lapses, the Court held that the impugned orders were unsustainable in law and directed the respondent to redo the assessment proceedings after complying with the necessary procedures, including issuing a notice for a personal hearing and passing a reasoned speaking order.

---