Court mandates fresh assessment orders under Tamil Nadu VAT Act 2006, emphasizing independent assessment and procedural fairness.

The court set aside the assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006 due to the lack of independent assessment by the first respondent. Emphasizing the need for the assessing officer to apply their mind independently, the court directed a reevaluation of the assessments in accordance with Narasu's principle. Despite the petitioner's non-compliance with objections and document submission, the court mandated fresh notices, allowing objections with supporting documents within a specified timeframe. The judgment highlighted procedural fairness and adherence to legal principles, disposing of the writ petitions without imposing costs on the parties involved.

---

---

Issues:
- Assessment orders solely based on proposal without independent assessment
- Failure to provide reasons for accepting enforcement wing proposal
- Applicability of Narasu's principle in absence of objections by assessee

Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed seven writ petitions under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006, where the primary contention was the lack of independent assessment by the first respondent. The petitioner argued that the assessing officer merely accepted the proposal by the enforcement wing without providing reasons for doing so.

2. The petitioner, a mobile phone shop owner, claimed to be an unregistered dealer with an annual turnover below Rs. 5,00,000. The enforcement wing proposed assessments based on alleged suppression of purchase details during a surprise inspection. Subsequently, the first respondent issued notices to the petitioner, who failed to produce necessary documents or avail of a personal hearing.

3. The petitioner's counsel relied on the Narasu's principle, emphasizing the need for the assessing officer to independently apply their mind during assessments. The judgment cited instances where the assessing officer's reliance solely on the enforcement wing's proposal was deemed inappropriate.

4. Despite the petitioner's failure to file objections or submit documents, the court found the assessment orders lacking in discussion and reasoning. Consequently, the court set aside the orders due to the absence of independent assessment and directed the first respondent to reevaluate the assessments in accordance with Narasu's principle.

5. The court clarified that the petitioner's non-compliance with the opportunity to object did not preclude the application of Narasu's principle in this case. The first respondent was instructed to issue fresh notices, allow objections with supporting documents, and conduct assessments within a specified timeframe, ensuring compliance with legal procedures.

6. Additionally, the court noted the petitioner's business status as a sole proprietor despite the partnership firm designation in the petition. The judgment concluded by disposing of the writ petitions with directions for reassessment, emphasizing adherence to legal principles and procedural fairness without imposing costs on the parties involved.

---