Court sets aside assessment orders for lack of personal hearing & independent assessment. Orders remanded for fresh consideration.

The Court set aside the revised assessment orders for assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 due to lack of personal hearing and independent application of mind by the assessing authority. The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of personal hearings, even if objections were submitted, and the requirement for independent assessment and reasons for decision-making. The impugned orders were deemed unsustainable and remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration, with directions to conduct a personal hearing, pass reasoned orders, and ensure compliance with the law within six weeks.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging revised assessment orders for assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 on grounds of lack of personal hearing and independent application of mind by the assessing authority.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Lack of Personal Hearing:
The petitioner, a dealer in granite under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, challenged revised assessment orders for three assessment years. The respondent issued notices and received objections from the petitioner but failed to provide a personal hearing before passing the impugned orders. The Court noted that the circular by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes mandated a personal hearing, even if not requested, following the recommendations of the Justice Sri Ramanujam Committee. Citing a previous decision, the Court emphasized that the opportunity of personal hearing cannot be denied, even if objections were not filed. As the respondent did not provide a personal hearing despite objections being submitted, the impugned orders were set aside on this ground.

2. Independent Application of Mind:
The Court observed that the assessing authority confirmed the proposal without an independent application of mind on the petitioner's objections. Referring to a prior judgment, it was highlighted that the assessing officer must consider information independently, call for explanations, and provide reasons for decision-making. In this case, the respondent did not demonstrate an independent assessment or provide reasons for rejecting objections, leading to the impugned orders being deemed unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside on this basis as well.

3. Decision and Remand:
In light of the above findings, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent was directed to conduct a personal hearing, pass reasoned orders on merits, and ensure compliance with the law within six weeks. The Court clarified that if the petitioner did not cooperate, the respondent could proceed with the available records. The writ petitions were disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed accordingly.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of lack of personal hearing and independent application of mind, the legal principles applied, and the final decision and directions given by the Court for remand and fresh consideration by the assessing authority.

---