TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the assessment orders were vitiated for want of personal hearing and violation of principles of natural justice. (ii) Whether the assessment orders were liable to be set aside and the matters remanded for fresh assessment.
Issue (i): Whether the assessment orders were vitiated for want of personal hearing and violation of principles of natural justice.
Analysis: The notices of proposal themselves indicated that the dealer would be given an opportunity of being heard in person. The assessee furnished objections and additional documents in response to subsequent notices, showing that the proceedings were still continuing. The respondent did not intimate any date for personal hearing before passing the assessment orders. The opportunity of hearing given later in proceedings under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act could not cure the defect, since the contemplated personal hearing had to precede the assessment order. The assessment procedure also had to conform to the Department's Circular No. 7/2014, which required a reasonable opportunity and personal hearing before passing orders.
Conclusion: The assessment orders were vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice and failure to afford the promised personal hearing.
Issue (ii): Whether the assessment orders were liable to be set aside and the matters remanded for fresh assessment.
Analysis: Since the defect went to the fairness of the assessment process, the merits of the assessment were not examined. The proper course was to annul the impugned orders and direct fresh assessment after giving the assessee a personal hearing with notice of the hearing date.
Conclusion: The assessment orders were set aside and the matters were remanded for fresh consideration.
Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded to the extent that the impugned assessments were invalidated on procedural grounds and sent back for de novo assessment after due personal hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a pre-assessment notice promises personal hearing, the assessing authority must afford that hearing before finalising the assessment; failure to do so vitiates the order for breach of natural justice and warrants remand for fresh decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
