Court sets aside TNVAT Act revisional orders due to lack of notice proof, grants petitioner fresh response opportunity. Upholds natural justice.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the revisional orders under the TNVAT Act due to lack of conclusive proof of notice service. Emphasizing procedural fairness, the court granted the petitioner a fresh opportunity to respond to assessment notices within a specified timeframe. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to statutory provisions on notice service and the right to be heard, upholding principles of natural justice and procedural due process in tax assessment proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
Assessment under TNVAT Act for multiple years, validity of pre-revisional notices, compliance with Rule 19 of TNVAT Rules, opportunity to show cause against orders.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to four writ petitions challenging revisional orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act) for different assessment years. The central issue revolves around the service of pre-revisional notices dated 18.08.2014 on the writ petitioner-dealer. The petitioner contended that no such notices were served, while the State Counsel argued otherwise, emphasizing compliance with Rule 19 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007 (TNVAT Rules). The court noted the absence of endorsement on the notices as per Rule 19(1)(a) and gave the benefit of doubt to the petitioner, ruling that the notices were not conclusively served. This finding led to the interference with the impugned orders, necessitating a fresh opportunity for the petitioner to show cause.

The court highlighted the statutory requirement of providing a reasonable opportunity to show cause against orders under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act. It clarified that such an opportunity does not mandate a personal hearing but necessitates a chance to present arguments. Referring to a previous case, the court differentiated between the requirements of personal hearing under different sections of the Act. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside due to the lack of conclusive proof of notice service, triggering the need for the petitioner to respond to the assessment notices within a specified timeframe.

In the final directives, the court ordered the petitioner to furnish supporting documents in response to the notices and directed the Assessing Officer to conduct a legal review of the petitioner's submissions within a stipulated period. The judgment focused on procedural fairness, emphasizing the importance of adherence to statutory provisions regarding notice service and the right to be heard. By granting the petitioner a fresh opportunity to present their case, the court upheld principles of natural justice and procedural due process in tax assessment matters under the TNVAT Act.

---