https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354852 Writ jurisdiction remained available despite an alternative appeal remedy under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, because the reassessment notices did not disclose the factual basis for reopening and enhancement. The High Court found that the notices were too vague to permit a meaningful reply, and that a mere invitation to appear during office hours was not an effective personal hearing. The impugned assessment orders were therefore treated as show cause notices, the assessee was directed to file objections, and the Assessing Officer was required to afford a proper hearing and redo the assessment in accordance with law. Coercive action was interdicted pending fresh consideration. en-us Wed, 10 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Nov 2018 12:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354852 Writ jurisdiction remained available despite an alternative appeal remedy under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, because the reassessment notices did not disclose the factual basis for reopening and enhancement. The High Court found that the notices were too vague to permit a meaningful reply, and that a mere invitation to appear during office hours was not an effective personal hearing. The impugned assessment orders were therefore treated as show cause notices, the assessee was directed to file objections, and the Assessing Officer was required to afford a proper hearing and redo the assessment in accordance with law. Coercive action was interdicted pending fresh consideration. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 10 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354852