Personal hearing is mandatory in penalty assessments; denial can violate natural justice and support rectification.

Assessment orders imposing tax and penalty could not be sustained where personal hearing was denied, because the omission violated natural justice; the orders were quashed and remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the assessee. The absence of a personal hearing was also treated as an error apparent on the face of the record, so rectification petitions under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 were maintainable. The authority was required to consider the documents filed with the rectification petitions and decide the matter afresh on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether assessment orders imposing tax and penalty could be sustained when passed without affording personal hearing. (ii) Whether rectification petitions under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 were maintainable to correct such error and require consideration of documents filed with the petitions.

Issue (i): Whether assessment orders imposing tax and penalty could be sustained when passed without affording personal hearing.

Analysis: The absence of personal hearing in the assessment proceedings was undisputed. The omission was treated as serious where penalty had also been imposed, and the decision referred to the settled requirement that personal hearing is mandatory in such circumstances. The defect was held to amount to violation of principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The assessment orders could not be sustained and were liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether rectification petitions under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 were maintainable to correct such error and require consideration of documents filed with the petitions.

Analysis: The failure to grant personal hearing was treated as an error apparent on the face of the record. On that basis, the rectification petitions were held maintainable. It was further held that, because the assessee had been denied an effective hearing at the assessment stage, the authority ought to consider the documents filed with the rectification petitions and decide the matter afresh on merits.

Conclusion: The rectification petitions were maintainable and the authority was required to consider the documents filed with them.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded, the impugned orders were quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration on merits after hearing the petitioner and examining the supporting documents.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment order imposing penalty without affording personal hearing violates natural justice and the resulting defect can be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record, making rectification maintainable.

---