Best judgment reassessment under Tamil Nadu VAT law must consider objections and give reasons, or it is liable to be set aside.

A best judgment reassessment under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 must show that the dealer's objections were considered and must state reasons for rejecting them. Where the dealer has replied to the notices with supporting material, a reassessment order that is silent on the objections and contains no reasons is unsustainable, even if brief. The Madras HC set aside the order and directed a fresh reassessment under Section 27 after considering the dealer's reply, without granting any further opportunity because notice and response had already been exchanged.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment order passed under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 was liable to be set aside for failure to consider the dealer's reply and for absence of reasons, and whether the matter required de novo reassessment.

Analysis: Section 27 contemplates best judgment reassessment and the proviso to sub-sections (1) and (2) requires a reasonable opportunity to show cause. The dealer had responded to the notices and filed supporting material, but the impugned order did not refer to the notices, did not advert to the objections, and gave no reasons for rejecting the dealer's position. In such a case, even if the order may be brief, it cannot be laconic or bereft of reasoning, because consideration of the explanation and a disclosure of reasons are essential to a valid reassessment under the provision.

Conclusion: The reassessment order was unsustainable and was set aside; the respondent was directed to redo the reassessment under Section 27 by considering the dealer's reply, without granting any further opportunity, since notice and response had already been exchanged.

Ratio Decidendi: A best judgment reassessment order under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 must reflect consideration of the dealer's objections and contain reasons, and a non-speaking order that omits both is liable to be set aside.

---