ORDER S. Manikumar J. - Writ petition is for a certiorari to quash the order of the respondent dated March 30, 2007 as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990. Brief facts leading to the writ petition are as follows : The petitioner - company is an authorised dealer for two wheelers manufactured by M/s. Hero Honda Motors Ltd., Dharukera, Haryana and an assessee on the file of the respondent both under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner imports two wheelers from outside State into the State of Tamil Nadu and sell them locally and they are liable to pay tax under the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990 (hereinafter termed as, "the Entry Tax Act"). For the assessment year 2001-02, they had reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 80,81,381, vide monthly returns filed under the Entry Tax Act. However, the respondent has opined that the petitioner has reported the turnover from April 2001 to August 2001 corresponding to the import of the vehicles from other States and no returns were filed for the subsequent months. On verification of books of account, the respondent has concluded that for the year 2001-02, the petitioner had imported motor vehicles to the value of Rs. 4,25,95,371 assessable to tax at the rate of nine per cent from April 1, 2001 to August 17, 2001 and at the rate of 13 per cent from August 18, 2001 to March 31, 2002. The petitioner - company was served with a show-cause notice dated July 28, 2004 to submit their objections, if any. Though the said show-cause notice was duly served on the petitioner on July 30, 2004, no objection was filed. After nearly three years, the respondent has issued another notice, dated March 22, 2007 proposing an assessment under the Entry Tax Act on the same turnover of Rs. 4,25,95,371 computing the tax at Rs. 49,77,286 and penalty under section 15(1) to the tune of Rs. 9,79,872 and further penalty for the belated payment of tax under section 15(2) to the tune of Rs. 3,97,934 and directed the petitioner to submit their objections to the said proposal. 4,25,95,371 computing the tax at Rs. 49,77,286 and penalty under section 15(1) to the tune of Rs. 9,79,872 and further penalty for the belated payment of tax under section 15(2) to the tune of Rs. 3,97,934 and directed the petitioner to submit their objections to the said proposal. Since the partners were away from the station for medical treatment, the petitioner sought 10 days time, vide their telegram to reply to the abovesaid show-cause notice. However, the respondent has confirmed the assessment and passed the impugned order, dated March 30, 2007. In the impugned order, the respondent has created an additional tax liability of Rs. 4,89,937 and penalty under section 15(1) and 15(2) of the Entry Tax Act to the tune of Rs. 9,79,872 and Rs. 1,59,866, respectively and also reserved his rights to levy further penalty under section 15(2) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the relief as stated above. By referring to section 8(3), 8(4) and 8(5) of the Entry Tax Act, Mrs. Hemalatha, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of assessment should be passed within three years from the last date prescribed for filing of returns for the particular period and in the instant case, the last date for filing of the returns for the assessment year 2001-02, was April 20, 2002 and that by computing the period of limitation, the assessment order should have been passed on or before April 20, 2005. She further submitted that since the impugned order of assessment is time-barred, the assessing authority has no jurisdiction to levy penalty under section 15(1) or 15(2) of the Entry Tax Act, as the case may be. Even assuming that the authority had jurisdiction to pass an order of assessment, no penalty can be levied for non-payment of the tax, unless personal hearing is provided to the assessee under section 15(2) of the Entry Tax Act. Therefore, she submitted that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice, as regards the penalty imposed by the respondent. Heard Mr. R. Mahadevan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent, who submitted that for assessment period between April 1, 2001 to August 17, 2002 may be left open for consideration by the department to initiate appropriate action, if there is any delay in payment. Heard Mr. R. Mahadevan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent, who submitted that for assessment period between April 1, 2001 to August 17, 2002 may be left open for consideration by the department to initiate appropriate action, if there is any delay in payment. Before adverting to the facts of this case, it is relevant to extract sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) of section 8 of the Act. "Section 8(3) : If the assessing authority is not satisfied that the return furnished by a person liable to pay tax, is correct and complete, and he thinks it necessary to require the presence of the person or production of further evidence, he shall serve on such person in the prescribed manner a notice requiring him on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend and produce or cause to be produced all evidences on which the said person relies in support of his return, or to produce such evidence as is specified in the notice. On the date specified in the notice, or as soon as may be, thereafter, the assessing authority shall, after considering all the evidences which may be produced, assess the amount of tax due from the person. Section 8(4) : If a person fails to comply with the requirements of any notice issued under sub-section (3), the assessing authority shall determine the purchase value of the motor vehicle under the proviso to clause (k) of section 2 to the best of his judgment and assess the amount of tax due from him. Section 8(5) : No order of assessment under sub-section (3) or (4) shall be made after the expiry of three years from the last date prescribed for filing of returns of the particular period. It for any reasons such order is not made within the period aforesaid then the return so filed shall be deemed to have been accepted as correct and complete for assessing the tax due from such person." Under section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990, the assessing officer has the authority to make assessment. But, it is clear from the abovesaid section that if a person fails to comply with the requirements of any notice issued under sub-section (3) of section 8 of the Act, the assessing authority shall determine the purchase value of the motor vehicle under the proviso to clause (k) of section 2 to the best of his judgment and assess the amount of tax due from him. While doing so, as per section 8(5) of the Act, no order of assessment under sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 8 shall be made after the expiry of three years from the last date prescribed for filing of the returns of the relevant period. If for any reason such order is not made within the aforesaid period, then the return so filed shall be deemed to have been accepted as correct and complete for assessing the tax due from such person. Admittedly, in the present case, the last date for filing returns for the financial year 2001-02 was April 20, 2002 and the petitioner - company have submitted their returns within the specified period. Though the assessment proceedings have been commenced in the year 2002 and the department issued a show-cause notice, dated July 28, 2004, the respondent has passed the impugned assessment order only on July 30, 2007, after three years from the date of issue of notice. It is explicit under section 8(5) that no order of assessment under sub-section (3) or (4) shall be made after the expiry of three years from the last date prescribed for filing of returns of the particular period. Section 8(5) further reads that if for any reasons, the assessment order was not made within the period aforesaid, then the return so filed shall be deemed to have been accepted as correct and complete for assessing the tax due from such person. The impugned order of assessment is clearly hit by section 8(5) of the Entry Tax Act and it is time-barred. Therefore, the respondent has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. The impugned order is set aside, in respect of its effect for the period between September 2001 to March 2002 and in respect of tax for the period from April 1, 2001 to August 17, 2002, the assessing authority has stated that the monthly tax due has been paid belatedly. The impugned order is set aside, in respect of its effect for the period between September 2001 to March 2002 and in respect of tax for the period from April 1, 2001 to August 17, 2002, the assessing authority has stated that the monthly tax due has been paid belatedly. As per the procedure, the date as to when the payment of tax fell due and the date of payment made by the assessee ought to have been mentioned in the impugned order. Penalty under section 15(2) can be levied only after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee. Therefore, as regards the penalty under section 15(2) of the Act for the belated payment is concerned, the respondent is directed to issue a fresh notice, calling upon the petitioner to file their objection and provide an opportunity of personal hearing as contemplated under the Act. It is made clear that the impugned order is set aside only for the limited extent of penalty period between September 2001 to March 2002. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.