JUDGMENT 1. Mr.A.R.Jaya Prathap, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondent. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. Heard Mr.S.Rajasekar, learned counsel representing Ms.R.Hemalatha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.R.Jaya Prathap, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. What is challenged in this Writ Petition is the proceedings of the respondent in TIN No.33094563601/2011-12, dated 7.1.2013 in respect of the assessment year 20112012, imposing tax and penalty on the petitioner-Company, seeking to quash the same. 3. The petitioner-Company is an assessee on the file of the respondent and they have been registered under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'TNVAT Act'). They are dealing in electronic goods, such as televisions and refrigerators and for the purpose of business, they procure the said goods from the registered dealers situated within the State and then sell the same to ultimate customers from their doorstep. The officials of the Enforcement Wing conducted a spot inspection on 20.4.2012 at the petitioner's business premises and verified various records. Based on the instructions of the higher officials, the Enforcement Wing officials conducted audit in terms of Section 64(4) of the TNVAT Act. On that basis, assessment was made by the respondent and impugned proceedings had been issued, demanding total tax due at Rs.95,48,818/- after calculations, and after deducting the total tax paid at Rs.74,93,460/-, a sum of Rs.20,55,358/-was arrived as balance tax to be paid and the penalty due was also calculated at Rs.10,58,078/-; it was also indicated in the impugned proceedings that no penalty was paid by the petitioner and notices in Form 'O' and Form 'RR' were also issued. 4. The petitioner-Company assails the impugned proceedings, dated 7.1.2013 on the ground that it is contrary to the provisions of the TNVAT Act, as sufficient opportunity was not given to them before concluding the assessment of tax, which was only on the basis of the single notice, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner had always been prompt and diligent in their transactions with the Department in the past. It is further alleged that the respondent erred in solely relying upon D-3 proposals of the Enforcement Wing officials without independent application of mind. 5. It is further alleged that the respondent erred in solely relying upon D-3 proposals of the Enforcement Wing officials without independent application of mind. 5. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no sufficient opportunity given to the petitioner before concluding the impugned assessment proceedings and the demand made thereon. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent in principle accepted that there must be an opportunity and submitted that the petitioner will be given an opportunity, if the matter is remanded to the authority for fresh consideration. 6. It is seen that the petitioner-Company is a registered dealer in electronic goods, such as televisions and refrigerators and they have paid the Value Added Tax. An audit was conducted by the Enforcement Wing officials based on the instructions of the higher officials and thereafter, the petitioner-Company was assessed to tax/penalty for the assessment year 2011-2012. Ultimately, the respondent came to the conclusion and passed the impugned proceedings indicating that the total turnover as per the Return is Rs.5,67,90,786/-; the total tax due was arrived at Rs.95,48,818/-after calculations and it was stated therein that the petitioner has already paid tax at Rs.74,93,460/-; the balance amount of tax due to be paid was arrived at Rs.20,55,358/-; the penalty was also imposed at Rs.10,58,078/-. Notices in Form 'O' and Form 'RR' were also issued. It is also noted in the impugned proceedings that the petitioner has not paid any penalty. 7. The plea of the petitioner-Company is that they have not been given sufficient opportunity to explain their cause as to the assessment made, before arriving at the tax due and penalty in the impugned assessment proceedings and to that extent, the impugned proceedings is legally infirmed and the same is liable to be set aside. 8. In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made on either side, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned proceedings, dated 7.1.2013 and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent shall conclude the assessment proceedings in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-Company, as expeditiously as possible. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.