Reassessment and bank attachment under VAT law turn on disclosed demand basis and separate assessee liability.

Reassessment under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act must rest on a disclosed and sustainable basis, and where proceedings are completed ex parte after closure of business without a clear explanation for the quantified demand, the orders may be interfered with conditionally. In this matter, the reassessment orders were set aside subject to deposit and remitted for fresh consideration on merits. Separate assessees cannot be treated as jointly liable merely because they are father and son; on that basis, attachment of the father's bank account for the son's alleged tax liability was not justified and was not sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment orders passed under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16 could be sustained and, if not, on what terms relief should be granted. (ii) Whether the attachment of the father's bank account could be sustained on the footing that he and the son were part of the same family and business.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment orders passed under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16 could be sustained and, if not, on what terms relief should be granted.

Analysis: The reassessment notices and the final orders were issued after the dealer had closed business and had not responded to the proceedings. The material placed before the Court did not satisfactorily explain the basis on which the tax demand had been quantified. In these circumstances, the course adopted by the authority was found unsatisfactory, but the dealer's lack of cooperation also weighed against an unconditional quash. The Court therefore treated the impugned orders as liable to be set aside subject to a substantial deposit, with liberty to the authority to proceed afresh and decide the matter on merits in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The reassessment orders were quashed subject to deposit of Rs. 25 lakhs within the stipulated time, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether the attachment of the father's bank account could be sustained on the footing that he and the son were part of the same family and business.

Analysis: The Court held that the son and father were independent petitioners and separate assessees under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. On that basis, the attachment of the father's bank account for the son's alleged tax liability lacked justification.

Conclusion: The bank attachment against the father was not sustained and the writ petition filed by him was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The assessment orders were interfered with only conditionally, the son obtained relief subject to deposit and remand, and the father obtained complete relief against the bank attachment.

Ratio Decidendi: Separate assessees cannot be fastened with each other's tax liability merely because they are family members, and a reassessment under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 must rest on a disclosed and sustainable basis when concluded ex parte.

---