Reopening of deemed assessment and best judgment notice requirements under the TNGST Act were applied to sustain reopening but quash final order.

A deemed assessment under the TNGST Act may be reopened where inspection materials indicate escaped turnover, and the dealer's failure to reply to the pre-assessment notice does not by itself invalidate reopening. The reopening notice was therefore upheld. However, a best judgment assessment cannot be sustained unless the dealer is given proper notice and opportunity before finalisation; since that procedural safeguard was not provided, the assessment order was set aside and remitted for fresh consideration after due notice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment could be reopened on the basis of the inspection materials and the absence of a reply to the pre-assessment notice, having regard to the deemed assessment framework under the TNGST Act. (ii) Whether the impugned assessment order could be sustained when the dealer was not put to proper notice before resorting to best judgment assessment.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment could be reopened on the basis of the inspection materials and the absence of a reply to the pre-assessment notice, having regard to the deemed assessment framework under the TNGST Act.

Analysis: The assessment for the relevant year was treated as a deemed assessment under Section 12-C of the TNGST Act, 1959, and such deemed completion did not bar reopening where materials indicated escaped turnover. The notice issued after the enforcement inspection was therefore held to be supportable, and the absence of a reply from the dealer did not by itself defeat the reopening.

Conclusion: The reopening notice was upheld and was held to be valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned assessment order could be sustained when the dealer was not put to proper notice before resorting to best judgment assessment.

Analysis: Although the dealer had not replied to the notice, the assessment was ultimately made on a best judgment basis. Before such an order could be passed, a proper corrigendum notice or equivalent opportunity was required. As that procedural safeguard was not provided, the assessment order could not be sustained in its present form.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after due notice.

Final Conclusion: The reopening was sustained, but the final assessment order was annulled for want of proper procedural opportunity and the matter was sent back for a fresh order in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A deemed assessment may be reopened on material indicating escaped turnover, but a best judgment assessment cannot be sustained unless the dealer is afforded proper notice and opportunity before finalisation.

---