https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259333 A penalty under Section 27(3) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 could not be sustained because the show cause notice did not propose the 150% penalty, and an assessee cannot be visited with an adverse consequence without specific notice. The assessment order was also set aside because Section 22(4) requires a personal hearing in revision of assessment matters, and that opportunity was not given, amounting to a breach of natural justice. The Madras High Court quashed the assessment order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration after proper notice and hearing. en-us Wed, 19 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 May 2015 08:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259333 A penalty under Section 27(3) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 could not be sustained because the show cause notice did not propose the 150% penalty, and an assessee cannot be visited with an adverse consequence without specific notice. The assessment order was also set aside because Section 22(4) requires a personal hearing in revision of assessment matters, and that opportunity was not given, amounting to a breach of natural justice. The Madras High Court quashed the assessment order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration after proper notice and hearing. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 19 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259333