Court sets aside assessment orders under TNVAT Act and CST Act due to procedural irregularities.

The court set aside the assessment orders under TNVAT Act and CST Act due to procedural irregularities. The petitioner, a water treatment plant business, was not given a fair opportunity to present evidence, violating quasi-judicial principles. The case highlighted the Assessing Officer's failure to independently adjudicate and consider objections properly. The judgment directed a review of evidence, a personal hearing for the petitioner, and issuance of new orders within six weeks. The writ petitions were allowed without costs, and the matters were remanded to the Assessing Officer for proper consideration.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging assessment orders dated 29.10.2015 for multiple years under TNVAT Act and CST Act. Lack of opportunity to present evidence. Alleged discrepancies in inspection report. Violation of quasi-judicial principles.

Analysis:

The petitioner, engaged in the business of water treatment plants, challenged assessment orders for several years under TNVAT Act and CST Act. The Enforcement Wing Officials alleged defects during an inspection, leading to notices and objections submitted by the petitioner. The Assessing Officer passed the impugned orders without considering the objections properly, raising concerns about the verification of buyer and seller. The petitioner contended that no opportunity was given to produce documentary evidence, citing a previous Division Bench ruling emphasizing the quasi-judicial nature of the Assessing Officer.

The court noted that the pre-revision notices were based on the Enforcement Wing's proposal, but the Assessing Officer failed to independently adjudicate the matter, as required by law. Additionally, the petitioner was not provided with a reasonable opportunity to present necessary documentary evidence, as mandated by Section 27(2) of the TNVAT Act. Despite the petitioner remitting 25% of the disputed tax, the impugned assessment orders were set aside due to procedural irregularities.

The judgment set aside the assessment orders and directed the matters to be restored to the Assessing Officer. The petitioner was instructed to submit documentary evidence within two weeks to support their claim of non-taxable transactions. The Assessing Authority was tasked with reviewing the evidence and objections, providing a personal hearing to the petitioner, and issuing appropriate orders within six weeks. The writ petitions were allowed without costs, and the connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.

---