Judgment These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner challenging the four assessment orders passed by the first respondent, whereby the assessments are sought to be revised under Section 27(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. 2. The short plea taken in the writ petitions is that the assessing authority has passed the impugned revised assessment orders under Section 27(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act (for short, "the TNVAT Act") without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in terms of Section 40(2), when the revision notices encompassed both for revision as well as for imposition of penalty. It is the specific plea of the petitioner that Section 40(2) of the TNVAT Act mandates the authority to give an opportunity of hearing before imposing penalty. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had filed their objections to the notices proposing revision. However, the only plea now taken is that when the revision of assessment notices encompassed both for revision as well as for imposition of penalty, an opportunity of hearing has to be given to the petitioner in terms of Section 40(2), before the impugned orders can be passed. Therefore, the entire proceedings are bad on account of violation of the above provision and also against the principle of natural justice. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 4. Mr.A.R.Jayapratap, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents, on instructions, states that insofar as the penalty portion is concerned, the matter may be remitted to the authority for considering the plea of the petitioner. 5. The Court is not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for revenue, as the proceedings for revision of assessment and for penalty cannot be truncated in the manner as stated by the learned Additional Government Pleader. Admittedly, the notices are for revision of the assessments and for imposition of penalty. When both go together on a common issue, there cannot be a separate proceeding for penalty alone, as it will defeat the object of the revision itself. If the revision of assessment fails, so will the penalty proceedings. Even if the TNVAT Act does not contemplate notice, in proceedings of this nature, opportunity of hearing will be necessary. When both go together on a common issue, there cannot be a separate proceeding for penalty alone, as it will defeat the object of the revision itself. If the revision of assessment fails, so will the penalty proceedings. Even if the TNVAT Act does not contemplate notice, in proceedings of this nature, opportunity of hearing will be necessary. In this context, we may refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kesar Enterprises Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 13 SCC 733, wherein the Supreme Court, while considering Rule 633(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Excise Manual which also provides for imposition of penalty and after referring to a plethora of decisions regarding the applicability of principles of natural justice, held that hearing is a must before imposition of penalty, whether or not statute or statutory provision/rules provide for it, as otherwise it would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court has held as under: "28. The question with regard to the requirement of an opportunity of being heard in a particular case, even in the absence of provisions for such hearing, has been considered by this Court in a catena of cases. However, for the sake of brevity, we do not propose to refer to all these decisions. Reference to a recent decision of this Court in Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT, (2008) 14 SCC 151 would suffice. In that case, the question for adjudication was whether in the absence of a provision in the Income Tax Act, 1961, an opportunity of hearing was required to be given to an assessee before an order under Section 142(2-A) of the said Act, directing special audit of his accounts was passed? 29. A Bench of three Judges, speaking through one of us (D.K. Jain, J.), explaining the concept of natural justice and the principles governing its application, summed up the legal position as under: “19. Thus, it is trite that unless a statutory provision either specifically or by necessary implication excludes the application of principles of natural justice, because in that event the court would not ignore the legislative mandate, the requirement of giving reasonable opportunity of being heard before an order is made, is generally read into the provisions of a statute, particularly when the order has adverse civil consequences for the party affected. The principle will hold good irrespective of whether the power conferred on a statutory body or tribunal is administrative or quasi-judicial. 20. We may, however, hasten to add that no general rule of universal application can be laid down as to the applicability of the principle audi alteram partem, in addition to the language of the provision. Undoubtedly, there can be exceptions to the said doctrine. Therefore, we refrain from giving an exhaustive catalogue of the cases where the said principle should be applied. The question whether the principle has to be applied or not is to be considered bearing in mind the express language and the basic scheme of the provision conferring the power; the nature of the power conferred and the purpose for which the power is conferred and the final effect of the exercise of that power. It is only upon a consideration of all these matters that the question of application of the said principle can be properly determined.” 30. Having considered the issue, framed in para 16, on the touchstone of the aforenoted legal principles in regard to the applicability of the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion that keeping in view the nature, scope and consequences of direction under sub-rule (7) of Rule 633 of the Excise Manual, the principles of natural justice demand that a show-cause notice should be issued and an opportunity of hearing should be afforded to the person concerned before an order under the said Rule is made, notwithstanding the fact that the said Rule does not contain any express provision for the affected party being given an opportunity of being heard. 31. Undoubtedly, action under the said Rule is a quasi-judicial function which involves due application of mind to the facts as well as to the requirements of law. Therefore, it is plain that before raising any demand and initiating any step to recover from the executant of the bond any amount by way of penalty, there has to be an adjudication as regards the breach of condition(s) of the bond or the failure to produce the discharge certificate within the time mentioned in the bond on the basis of the explanation as also the material which may be adduced by the person concerned denying the liability to pay such penalty. Moreover, the penalty amount has also to be quantified before proceedings for recovery of the amount so determined are taken. 32. In our view, therefore, if the requirement of an opportunity to show cause is not read into the said Rule, an action thereunder would be open to challenge as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the power conferred on the competent authority under the provision is arbitrary. 35. ....... We are convinced that in the present case, before imposing the impugned demand of penalty and interest, there was absolutely no adjudication by any authority as regards the breach committed by the appellant, except the allegation that the appellant had failed to furnish the PD 25 pass certified by the Collector. In our opinion, therefore, the action of the respondents for the recovery of penalty and interest, being violative of principles of natural justice, is null and void." (emphasis supplied) 6. In the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court and in view of the mandate of Section 40(2) of the TNVAT Act that an opportunity of hearing should be given to the petitioner and since it is violated by the first respondent, the impugned proceedings are set aside and the matter is remitted to the first respondent for fresh disposal on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before deciding the revision of assessment. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner will co-operate with the authority for early disposal of the matter and the said submission is recorded. The writ petitions are allowed by way of remand. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 of 2012 are closed. No costs.