Procedural fairness in revised assessment requires consideration of the dealer's reply before personal hearing and finalisation.

Revised assessment under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 was held procedurally defective because the dealer's reply to the revisional notice had not been received and considered before the personal hearing and finalisation of the orders. The record showed the hearing took place before receipt of the reply, and the impugned orders did not contain a clear record of any earlier hearing. The Madras High Court therefore set aside the revised assessment orders and remanded the matter for fresh assessment after granting a proper personal hearing, without examining the merits of the assessment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revised assessment orders were liable to be set aside because the personal hearing was held before receipt and consideration of the dealer's reply to the revisional notice.

Analysis: The revised assessment was made under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The material relied upon in the impugned orders included the revisional notice dated 20.09.2018, so the dealer's reply to that notice was required to be considered before finalisation. The record showed that the reply dated 19.10.2018 was received only on 26.10.2018, while the personal hearing had already taken place on 19.10.2018. In the absence of any clear record of earlier hearings in the impugned orders themselves, the assessment process was found to be procedurally defective. The Court also clarified that it was not examining the merits of the assessment.

Conclusion: The revised assessment orders were set aside on the procedural ground that the dealer's reply was not considered before the hearing and the matter was remanded for fresh assessment after granting a proper personal hearing.

---