Court invalidates assessment notices lacking specific reasons for revision under TNVAT Act, directs fresh notices.

The court found that the new notices challenging the assessment and penalty under the TNVAT Act for specific years lacked specific reasons for revising the assessment and were essentially identical to the original notice. As a result, the court directed the respondents to withdraw the notices and allowed them to issue fresh notices following proper procedures. The writ petitions were disposed of without costs.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging notice for assessment and penalty under TNVAT Act for specific years.

Analysis:
The writ petitions challenged a notice dated 28.04.2018 for assessing the non-declaration of taxable turnover under Section 27(1)(a) of the TNVAT Act, 2006, and imposing a penalty for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-2014, and 2014-15. The petitioner had previously filed a writ petition seeking a refund based on an assessment order dated 09.09.2016, which directed a refund for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. However, instead of processing the refund, a new notice was issued raising the same contentions as the original notice dated 14.07.2016, leading to the current writ petitions challenging these notices.

The counter affidavits filed by the respondents justified the new notices by stating that they were issued to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner as no order was passed based on the petitioner's reply to the original notice. It was alleged that the petitioner had undisclosed turnover from a payment received during the year 2012-13, which was not reported in the monthly returns. The respondents argued that the impugned notices were within their authority under Section 27(1)(a) of the TNVAT Act, highlighting that no assessment order was passed for the year 2012-13, and hence, the petitioner could not assume the proposal in the original notice was dropped.

During the hearing, the Senior Counsel for the petitioner pointed out the similarity between the original notice of proposal dated 14.07.2016 and the new notice dated 24.08.2018. The Senior Counsel argued that since the Assessing Officer had already considered the petitioner's reply to the original notice and passed an assessment order, issuing new notices with the same allegations was unjustified. The Additional Government Pleader representing the respondents contended that the Assessing Officer could revise assessments within the limitation period, and the new notices were valid as the previous assessment orders did not address the core issues raised in the original notice. The court noted that while the Assessing Officer had the right to revise assessments, the new notices lacked specific reasons for revising the assessment and were essentially identical to the original notice, leading to the conclusion that they could not be sustained.

The court found that the impugned notices did not meet the legal requirements for revising assessments and directed the respondents to withdraw the notices with the liberty to issue fresh notices in accordance with the law. The court disposed of the writ petitions without costs, allowing the respondents to issue new notices following proper procedures.

---