High Court sets aside orders, remands for fresh consideration. Emphasizes natural justice principles.

The High Court allowed the Writ Petitions, setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the matters back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent was directed to provide relevant documents, receive objections, schedule a specific date for a personal hearing, and pass orders in accordance with law within six weeks. The judgment emphasized the necessity of complying with principles of natural justice and ensuring a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present their case.

---

---

Issues:
- Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus for revised assessment notices
- Denial of personal hearing post-issuance of revised assessment notices
- Compliance with principles of natural justice

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed Writ Petitions seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the respondent's orders and direct a de novo adjudication of Revised Assessment Notices for multiple assessment years. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, received pre-assessment notices and subsequent requests for documents and personal hearings. However, the respondent issued revised assessment notices without affording a final opportunity for personal hearing, leading to the present dispute.

2. The High Court observed that the respondent did provide personal hearings before issuing the revised assessment notices. However, after the issuance, the petitioner's requests for personal hearings were not granted, and the impugned orders were passed without considering the petitioner's subsequent requests for hearings. The Court emphasized the importance of giving ample opportunity for objections and personal hearings before final orders, in line with principles of natural justice and departmental instructions.

3. Referring to a previous Division Bench decision, the Court highlighted that denial of personal hearing based on the failure to submit objections to pre-assessment notices is unjustified. The Court cited the requirement for a hearing unless specifically excluded by law. In the current case, as the impugned orders were passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice, they were deemed unsustainable in law.

4. Consequently, the High Court allowed the Writ Petitions, setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the matters back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent was directed to provide relevant documents, receive objections, schedule a specific date for a personal hearing, and pass orders in accordance with law within six weeks. The judgment emphasized the necessity of complying with principles of natural justice and ensuring a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present their case.

---