Natural justice and personal hearing requirements led to setting aside assessment and penalty orders for fresh consideration.

Assessment and penalty orders were vitiated because the assessee was not granted a personal hearing before they were passed. The court held that the assessing authority remained bound to fix a hearing date and communicate it, even where no objection had been filed to the pre-assessment notice. As the orders did not show that such an opportunity was afforded, they were set aside. The turnover threshold argument under Section 3(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 was noted, but the decisive ground was breach of natural justice. The matters were remanded for fresh consideration after granting personal hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment orders were vitiated for denial of personal hearing and required to be set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The challenge centred on the absence of a personal hearing before passing the impugned assessment and penalty orders. It was held that even if no objection had been filed to the pre-assessment notice, the assessing authority was still bound to fix a hearing date and communicate it to the assessee. The impugned orders did not disclose that such an opportunity had been afforded. The contention regarding the turnover threshold under Section 3(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 was noted, but the decisive ground for interference was the violation of natural justice.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the matters were remanded for fresh consideration after granting personal hearing.

---