TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 772
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....disposal. 2 In all these writ petition the petitioner challenges the orders of Assessment passed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006 [TNVAT Act] for the Assessment Years 2008-2009 to 2014-2015. The petitioner is carrying on the business of 'dyeing' and registered as a dealer on the file of the respondent under the provisions of TNVAT Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [CST Act]. The petitioner would state that they had purchased yarn from the local registered dealers and carrying on dyeing process in their factory and effecting local sales. Apart from that, the petitioner claims to have sent certain quantity of Yarn to their factory in Kerala to carry on dyeing process and it is again brought back t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed Assessment Orders. The dates of those letters have been mentioned, viz., 10.05.2015, 05.06.2015 and 19.06.2015. However, in spite of sufficient time being granted, the petitioner did not file their objections and consequently, the respondent having left with no other option, confirmed the proposal in the pre-revision notices dated 07.04.2015 and passed the impugned Assessment Orders. 3 The petitioner would state that the impugned Assessment Orders have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice since opportunity of personal hearing was not granted to the petitioner. Furthermore, it is submitted that merely because the Enforcement Wing Officials have submitted a report, that cannot be the sole basis for taking a decision in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 28-A of the said Act does not in terms require a hearing to be given to a dealer who seeks the clarification, but in cases where dealer seeks for a personal hearing, such dealer should be afforded the same in all cases where the Commissioner proposes to record a finding, which is adverse to the dealer and such adverse order to the assessee can only be made after giving the assessee a hearing. 27.We also hold, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned order by way of revision of assessment should not have been passed without giving the assessee an opportunity of personal hearing. But since the same has been denied, the impugned order is hereby quashed. 6 That apart, the impugned Assessment Orders have been passed so....