Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the revision of assessment orders passed under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, solely on the basis of the Enforcement Wing report and without independent verification of the dealer's books of accounts, was sustainable in law.
Analysis: The challenge was that the completed assessments were revised mechanically, without an independent assessment and without verification of the dealer's books of accounts, even though the dealer had responded to the pre-revision proposals and undertook to produce records. The settled procedure required the authority to conduct an independent enquiry and not merely accept the Enforcement Wing's web report. The impugned orders did not show adherence to that procedure, and the counter affidavit did not effectively answer the grievance that the revision was made without the necessary verification. The lapse was held to be contrary to the procedure recognised in the earlier decision relied upon and inconsistent with fair procedure.
Conclusion: The revision orders were held unsustainable and were quashed. The matter was remanded to the authority for fresh consideration after affording sufficient opportunity and personal hearing to the dealer and after deciding the objections in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: A revision of assessment under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 cannot rest mechanically on an Enforcement Wing report without independent assessment and verification of the dealer's books of accounts; failure to follow that fair procedure vitiates the order.