Procedural fairness in tax assessment requires matching penalty provisions and a real personal hearing; inconsistent notice and order were set aside.

Penalty under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act could not be sustained where the proposal notice cited Section 22(5) but the impugned orders imposed penalty under Section 27(3)(c), creating a mismatch between notice and final action. The assessment was also vitiated because the record did not show that a specific date for personal hearing was granted, despite a general reference to an opportunity being available. On these procedural fairness grounds, the revised assessment orders and penalty were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after due personal hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revised assessment orders and penalty could be sustained when the penalty was proposed under one provision but imposed under another, and when no effective personal hearing was granted.

Analysis: The notice of proposal indicated penalty only under Section 22(5) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, whereas the impugned orders imposed penalty under Section 27(3)(c) of that Act. The record also did not show that the petitioner was given a specific date for personal hearing, though the notice mentioned that an opportunity would be available. In these circumstances, the assessment was found to have been made without due observance of procedural fairness, and the merits of the assessment were not gone into.

Conclusion: The revised assessment orders and penalty could not be sustained and were set aside. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration after granting due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

---