The Commercial Tax Officer, Pattukottai I Assessment Circle, Pattukottai. ... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the respondent in TIN/33534161488/20062007 dated 29.06.2010 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal. !For Petitioner : Mr.P.R.Kumar For Respondent : Mr.J.Padmavathi Devi Special Government Pleader :ORDER Challenging the assessment order passed by the respondent in TIN / 33534161488 / 20062007 under Tamilnadu VAT Act, dated 29.06.2010, the present writ petition is filed. 2. A perusal of the order shows that the order was passed for non appearance of the dealer, despite receipt of summons. Now that, the petitioner would submit that he could not appear before the authority due to illhealth. Even at the time of assessment, no defects were found. The present order was passed on the best of judgment basis, disallowing ITC and exemption already claimed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that even though he could not appear before the respondent pursuant to the summons issued by him, it is incumbent on the part of the assessing authority to provide an opportunity of personal hearing. In the instant case, no such personal hearing was fixed nor he was called to appear for personal hearing. Therefore, the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader would vehemently contend that on the basis of random scrutiny conducted by the respondent, summons were issued to the petitioner to appear before the respondent to file his objection. But the petitioner has failed to appear and failed to avail the opportunity of personal hearing. She would further submit that an alternative remedy of appeal is also available before the appellate authority. Without exhausting the same, the petitioner has hastened to approach this Court by way of writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that there is an alternative remedy of filing an appeal and hence, she prays for dismissal of this writ petition. 5. Heard both sides. 6. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the assessment order is deemed to have been assessed as per Section 22(2) of Tamilnadu VAT Act,2006. On random scrutiny, the petitioner was issued with the summons and since he failed to respond, final orders were passed. 7. It is well settled by the instructions issued by the department as well as various judgments that even where objections are filed or not, an opportunity of personal hearing shall be afforded to the dealer concerned. In the instant case, the summons were issued on 20.01.2010. There is no reference as to the date of service of summons and there was no reference as to the date fixed for personal hearing. The respondent has not communicated the hearing date fixed for personal hearing and called the petitioner to make his submissions. 8. The Division Bench of this Court in similar issue (in SRC Projects Private Limited Vs.Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai and Another) has categorically held as follows: ?8. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contentions, this Court proposes to set out the provision of Section 16(1)(a) of the said Act, which is relevant for our consideration. 16(1)(a): Where, for any reason, the whole or any part of the turnover of business of a dealer has escaped assessment to tax, the assessing authority may, subject to the provisions of subsection (2), at any time within a period of five years from the date of order of the final assessment by the assessing authority, determine to the best of its judgment the turnover which has escaped assessment and assess the tax payable on such turnover after making such enquiry as it may consider necessary and after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity to show cause against such assessment. 9. The relevant part of the circular dated 20.04.2001 (hereinafter, the said circular) is also set out below: 2. Fair opportunity is to be given to the assessee and judicial consideration given to the representations, evidenc