TNVAT assessment order quashed for lack of natural justice. Petitioner granted reconsideration with full rights.

The Court quashed the impugned assessment order under the TNVAT Act, 2006, due to a violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner, a registered dealer, was not held liable for the non-reporting of sales by the seller. The Court directed the second respondent to reconsider the matter, allowing the petitioner to raise objections, have a personal hearing, and pass final orders within eight weeks, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles. The Writ Petition was disposed of without costs.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging impugned assessment order under TNVAT Act, 2006 based on non-reporting of sales by other end seller, violation of principles of natural justice in passing assessment order.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the TNVAT Act, 2006, challenged the impugned assessment order passed by the second respondent. The petitioner contended that all purchases were reported to the second respondent, and objections were raised against the proposed revision. The petitioner argued that being penalized for the fault of the other end seller was unjust.

2. The petitioner's counsel cited a judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Madras High Court, which held that a dealer, as a purchaser, cannot be held liable for non-reporting of sales by the seller. The petitioner maintained that the impugned assessment order did not adhere to the law and should be quashed.

3. The Additional Government Pleader for the respondents argued that the petitioner had an alternative appellate remedy under Section 51 of the Act and that the assessment order was based on details and vouchers submitted by the petitioner. The respondents claimed that all objections were considered, and the petitioner was granted a personal hearing, ensuring no violation of natural justice.

4. The Court noted that the main reason for the assessment revision was the other end seller's failure to report sales to the respondent. However, the petitioner had duly reported all purchases without suppression. Citing the judgment mentioned earlier, the Court found that the assessment order violated natural justice by not considering the petitioner's objections.

5. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned assessment order and remanded the matter back to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The second respondent was directed to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to raise objections, grant a personal hearing, and pass final orders within eight weeks, in compliance with the principles of natural justice.

6. The Writ Petition was disposed of with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed as per the Court's directions.

---