ORDER : Heard Mr.C.Natarajan learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.N.Inbarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Manokara Sundaram, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and with their consent, the Writ Petitions are taken up for final disposal. Since the issues involved in all these Writ Petitions are identical, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the preparation and sale of eatables and articles of food and drinks with the principal place of business at No.75 Arockyasamy Road East, Coimbatore. The petitioner also runs restaurants in other places numbering about 15. In respect of the premises at No. 75 Arockyasamy Road East, Coimbatore, the petitioner have let out four floors in the building namely, fourth to seventh floors to a partnership firm consisting of four partners for running a lodging house, which has been granted a Two Star status by the Tourism Department. The petitioner have filed returns and had been remitting the tax under Section 7(1)(b) of the TNVAT Act charging 2% on the sales of food and drinks to their customers including the sales to the partnership firm, which is running the lodging house. The returns were accepted under deemed assessment from time to time. While so, notice was issued to the petitioner proposing to tax the gross receipts of the petitioner on all restaurants sales at 14.5% by adopting the rate irrespect of whether the restaurants were run and if not located in any hotel premises or as an adjunct. The notices were issued for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14. The petitioner submitted individual replies on 12.03.2015. After receipt of the replies, the respondent has passed the impugned orders of assessment by confirming the proposal in the notice, and these orders are challenged in these Writ Petitions. 3. The notices were issued for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14. The petitioner submitted individual replies on 12.03.2015. After receipt of the replies, the respondent has passed the impugned orders of assessment by confirming the proposal in the notice, and these orders are challenged in these Writ Petitions. 3. From the record of the proceedings, more particularly the show cause notices issued to the petitioner, it is seen that the proposal to revise the assessment was on the ground that the petitioner had paid tax at 2% on the sale of food and drinks including sweets, savouries etc., and the petitioner was classified as a Two Star Hotel by the Tourism Department with effect from 25.09.2007 and they have to pay tax at the rate of 12.5% on the sale value of the food and drinks supplied in the prescribed place under Section 7(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, (TNVAT Act), with effect from 25.09.2007. Noticing that the petitioner had been paying tax at 2% under Section 7(1)(b), the petitioner was informed that they were responsible for collecting VAT from the customer at the rate of 12.5% on the value charged in the bills and the correctness of the taxable turnover of the main branch is still ascertainable from the petitioner and they were instructed to produce branch wise sale details at the earliest and if not, it is proposed to bring 50% of the reported taxable turnover under Section 27(1) of the TNVAT Act to pay tax at 12.5%. There was also a proposal to levy penalty under Section 27(1)(b) of the TNVAT Act. The petitioner by their reply, while resisting the proposal to revise the assessment, apart from other contentions stated as follows:- Probably and presumably, on an erroneous understanding and impression that our restaurant is attached to Sree Annapoorna Lodging, the present revision notice has been issued. As already stated in our previous replies, our hotel catering food and drinks to general public and Sree Annapoorna Lodging functioning in 4th to 7th floor in the same building situated at 75, East Arokiasamy Road, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore are differently constituted entities. To be more specific, ours is a private limited concern, whereas Sree Annapoorna Lodging is a partnership concern. As already stated in our previous replies, our hotel catering food and drinks to general public and Sree Annapoorna Lodging functioning in 4th to 7th floor in the same building situated at 75, East Arokiasamy Road, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore are differently constituted entities. To be more specific, ours is a private limited concern, whereas Sree Annapoorna Lodging is a partnership concern. We are also enclosing copies of documents mentioned in the reference column, which have neither been adverted to or adjudged in this revision notice, in order to efface any doubt lingering in the minds of the taxing authorities, as to lesser payment of tax alleged to have been made by us in respect of sales of food and drinks effected in our main place of business and other outlets. 4. Thus, the contention raised by the petitioner is that the respondent was under the impression that the restaurant is attached to the lodging house and hence, revision was proposed. It was informed by the petitioner to the respondent that the lodging facility was by a different entity, a separate partnership firm, whereas the petitioner was a private limited company. However, while considering the objections, the respondent proceeded on different lines, than what was proposed in the show cause notice. 5. As pointed out earlier, the respondent proposed to bring 50% of the petitioner's reported taxable turnover under Section 27(1) of the TNVAT Act to pay tax at 12.5%, upon failure of the petitioner to produce branch wise sale details. Along with the objections to the show cause notice, the petitioner has enclosed certain records. However, the respondent, without adverting to any of the records, overruled the objections raised and assessed the petitioner to tax at 14.5% in respect of all its branches. Along with the objections to the show cause notice, the petitioner has enclosed certain records. However, the respondent, without adverting to any of the records, overruled the objections raised and assessed the petitioner to tax at 14.5% in respect of all its branches. It is noteworthy to point out at this juncture that an advance ruling has been issued by the authority, dated 29.09.2014 in ACAAR No.042/2014-15 (Acts Cell-II/21576/2014) dated 29.09.2014, wherein a clarification regarding the rate of tax on sale of ready to eat unbranded foods and drinks, including sweets, savouries were sought for and the following ruling has been given by the authority:- Sale of “Ready to eat unbranded foods and drinks, including sweets, savouries and non-alcoholic beverages” at Farm House restaurant on ECR road, Panaiyur village is taxable at the reduced rate of 2% under section 7(1)(b) of the TNVAT Act, read with Notification No.II(1)/CTR/(a-14)/2007 in G.O.Ms.No.12, CT & R (B2), Department, dated 01.01.2007 and Notification No.II(1)/CTR/30(a-2)/2012 in G.O.Ms.No.32, CT & R (B2) Department, dated 10.03.2012, as long if it is not classified as a star hotel. 6. At this stage, it is beneficial to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of S. Kathresan vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, (Registration Cell), Puducherry, reported in (2011) 40 VST 399 (Mad), wherein the Court pointed out that if the order proceeds on the reasons other than those stated in the notice, in fairness to the claim of the petitioner, the respondent should have indicated the same too in the notice and if the same has not been done, it would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. 7. Further there appears to have been no personal hearing granted to the petitioner. That apart, sufficient reasons have not been set out for imposing penalty. 8. For the above reasons, this Court is of the view that the respondent should be directed to examine the specific contention raised by the petitioner that the lodging facility is being carried on by a different entity namely a partnership firm and they are a public limited company. That apart, the impugned order has proceeded on a totally different line, than what was proposed in the show cause notice. Further, the respondent being the Assessing Officer has to take note of the advance ruling issued by the authority as referred supra. 9. That apart, the impugned order has proceeded on a totally different line, than what was proposed in the show cause notice. Further, the respondent being the Assessing Officer has to take note of the advance ruling issued by the authority as referred supra. 9. Hence, for all the above reasons, this Court deems it appropriate to interfere with the impugned orders and remand the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.