Fair hearing and reasoned penalty requirements led to quashing of tax assessment orders and remand for fresh consideration.

Assessment orders affecting tax liability were set aside because the taxpayer was found not to have been given a sufficient opportunity to file objections with supporting documents, and the matter was remanded for fresh assessment after hearing and consideration of the reply. The penalty under Section 27(3) of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act was also held unsustainable because the orders contained no reasons or findings showing why penalty was warranted, and no proper hearing had been afforded. Fresh assessment proceedings were therefore directed for reconsideration of both the assessment and penalty portions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment orders were liable to be set aside for want of sufficient opportunity to file objections with supporting documents; (ii) Whether the penalty imposed under Section 27(3) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 could be sustained in the absence of reasons and hearing.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment orders were liable to be set aside for want of sufficient opportunity to file objections with supporting documents.

Analysis: The petitioner had participated in connected assessment proceedings for other years by filing replies, and the Court accepted that further time was sought only to collect voluminous documents. On that factual basis, the request for additional time to place objections in the present assessment years was found to be genuine. The Court held that the matter should go back for fresh assessment after considering the reply and affording personal hearing.

Conclusion: The assessment orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration after giving the petitioner an opportunity to file objections.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed under Section 27(3) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 could be sustained in the absence of reasons and hearing.

Analysis: Although the proposal notice referred to penalty, the assessment orders did not record any reasons or findings showing how the authority was satisfied to impose penalty. The Court held that penalty cannot be sustained without affording an opportunity of hearing and without a reasoned basis demonstrating its necessity.

Conclusion: The penalty portion was not sustainable and required reconsideration in fresh assessment proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were allowed, the assessment orders were quashed, and the matters were remitted for fresh orders after hearing the petitioner and considering the reply and tax payment directed by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty and assessment orders affecting liability must be supported by reasons and preceded by a fair opportunity of hearing; where such opportunity is inadequate and the order is unreasoned, remand for fresh adjudication is warranted.

---