The Commercial Tax Officer, PeriyakulamAssessment Circle, Periakulam. ... 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 on the file of the respondent in TIN:33875060685 dated 5.10.2016 and quash the same as invalid, illegal and against the principles of natural justice. !For Petitioner : Mr.A.Chandrasekaran For Respondent : Mr.S.Dhayalan Government Advocate :ORDER This writ petition is filed to quash the assessment order passed by the respondent in TIN:33875060685 dated 5.10.2016. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006. For the assessment year 201314, he filed monthly returns. Pursuant to an inspection conducted by the Enforcement Wing of the Department on 06.12.2013, a revision notice was issued on 12.01.2015. The petitioner filed a reply in the same month. Thereafter a revised prerevision notice was issued on 05.05.2015. The petitioner has again filed his reply to the same. Once again, assessment was further revised and fresh notice dated 24.08.2015 was served on the petitioner. Thereafter, the final order came to be passed. 4. A Division Bench of this Court, in similar issue in SRC Projects Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai and Another reported in 2010(33) VST 333 (Mad), 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, evidences and materials furnished by him. But personal hearing need not be given unless the statute requires it (eg.Section22(2)) or the assessee asks for it. 10. Since, the questions overlap, all of them are discussed together. 11. Before dealing with those questions, this Court proposes to consider a few authorities on the content of the expression reasonable opportunity to show cause. It may be true if the provision of reasonable opportunity to show cause is considered bereft of the circular, then it may not be held that it includes an opportunity of personal hearing. But then in a case where the question involved is one of determination of certain factual disputes, which are a bit complex and not free from controversy, the Court has to consider whether principles of fairness would encompass personal hearing within the concept of reasonable opportunity to show cause under Section 16(1)(a) of the said Act. 12. Reference in this connection may be made to Professor Wades treatise on Administrative Law (9th Edition). At page 517 of the said treatise the learned author has emphasized that a hearing will normally be an oral hearing. But, in some cases, it is sufficient to give an opportunity to make a representation in writing provided that no adverse materials are disclosed and further the demands of fairness are sufficiently met. 13. Similar views have been expressed in De.Smiths Judicial Review of Administrative Action, (6th Edition) at page 397. The learned author opined that a fair hearing does not necessarily mean that there must be an opportunity to be heard orally, but one is entitled to an oral hearing where fairness requires that there should be such hearing. But, fairness does not require that there should be an oral hearing in every case. However, the learned author referred to the decision in Sengupta Vs. Holms, (2002) EWCA Civ 1104 at (38) and quoted the views of Laws L.J. where the learned