Natural justice in tax reassessment fails where a vague, pre-determined show cause notice lacks essential particulars.

Proceedings under section 27(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 were not barred by limitation, because the relevant starting point for the six-year period was the date of reassessment and not the deemed assessment date. The assessment nevertheless failed because the show cause notice lacked material particulars of the alleged suppressed interstate purchases and used language suggesting the issue was already proved. Such a vague, pre-determined notice did not satisfy the requirement of fair notice and natural justice, so the resulting revisional assessment was unsustainable. The order was set aside, with liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether proceedings under section 27(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 were barred by limitation; (ii) Whether the show cause notice preceding the assessment order was so vague and pre-determined that the assessment order could not be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether proceedings under section 27(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 were barred by limitation.

Analysis: The limitation issue turned on the starting point for computing six years from the date of assessment. The earlier view that reassessment under section 22(4) could not be made after the deemed assessment date was no longer tenable in view of the subsequent Division Bench ruling. On that basis, the date of reassessment, and not the deemed assessment date, was the relevant starting point for limitation under section 27(1)(a).

Conclusion: The limitation objection was rejected and the proceedings were held to be within time.

Issue (ii): Whether the show cause notice preceding the assessment order was so vague and pre-determined that the assessment order could not be sustained.

Analysis: The notice did not furnish adequate particulars of the alleged suppressed interstate purchases, such as transactional details, suppliers, or dates of purchase. It also used decisive language indicating that the alleged suppression was already "proved", which showed a pre-determined approach. A notice under section 27(1)(a) must contain sufficient particulars so that the dealer can effectively respond, because the scheme requires fair notice, enquiry, and compliance with natural justice. A vague notice cannot support a valid revisional assessment.

Conclusion: The assessment order was unsustainable because the notice was vague and offended the requirements of fair procedure and natural justice.

Final Conclusion: The limitation ground failed, but the writ court's interference was upheld on the independent ground of vagueness in the notice. The assessment order remained set aside, while liberty was reserved to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional assessment notice must disclose sufficient particulars and must not be framed in terms that indicate a concluded finding before hearing the dealer; otherwise, the resulting order is vulnerable for violation of natural justice.

---