JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the Respondent in his proceedings leading to passing of the Revised Assessment Order vide TIN/33156452717/2015-16 dated 02.07.2018 quash the same and direct the Respondent to pass fresh revised assessment order after giving opportunity to reply and personal hearing.) Common Order 1. The petitioner, a sole proprietary, assails orders of assessment dated 02.07.2018 passed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 ('Act') for the periods 2010-11 to 2015-16. The grounds on which the impugned orders are assailed are in violation of the orders are contrary to the principals of natural justice, apart from being malafide. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the documents based upon which the assessments have been framed have not been provided to the petitioner, despite a specific request in this regard and that the assessments are based entirely on the profit and loss account and balance sheet accompanying the income tax returns filed by the petitioner, and nothing else. 3. Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Commercial Taxes Department would support the impugned assessments pointing out the petitioner had not even registered itself for liability under the Act till a visit of the Enforcement Officials on 02.12.2016, 20.12.2016 and 25.02.2017. It was only thereafter that the petitioner had even proceeded to register itself as a dealer. 4. Learned Additional Government Pleader further states that in the course of the visit/inspection of the Enforcement Officials, gross suppression had been detected. The visit revealed income tax statements filed for various years by the petitioner, as per which the petitioner had received amounts towards contract and labour wages. These transactions have been suppressed for the purposes of quantifying turnover under VAT. 5. As regards the contentions in regard to natural justice, notices dated 06.10.2017 and 23.03.2018 had admittedly been issued and received by the petitioner, in response to which only one letter had been filed by the petitioner on 08.12.2017, requesting time on account of illness of the proprietor. 6. Despite letter dated 08.12.2017, requesting two months time on the ground of illness of the proprietor, no defence or documents particulars in support of either the illness or its defence on merits have been received. 6. Despite letter dated 08.12.2017, requesting two months time on the ground of illness of the proprietor, no defence or documents particulars in support of either the illness or its defence on merits have been received. It was only thereafter, affording opportunity that the impugned orders of assessment had come to be passed, confirming the proposals for the assessment years in question. 7. Rival contentions have been carefully considered. 8. This is a case where the petitioner has evidently and clearly avoided registration under the provisions of the Act. The income tax statements found in the course of visit of the Enforcement Officials do indicate transactions giving rise to receipts, that ought to have been disclosed before the respondent department for assessment. However, I will desist from delving further into this aspect in light of the order that I have passed in conclusion. 9. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to have registered itself, which it has not done. The registration was only post the visit of the enforcement officials. At paragraph 4, the petitioner states that it is 'a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act and is regular in submitting its returns and compliances relating to the above business from the date of registration', giving the impression that it is a compliant assessee. 10. The impression created, that the petitioner was prompt in obtaining registration from inception of business, is false as, though the petitioner concern has been in operation from the period 2010-11 onwards registration has been obtained only on 20.12.2016 after detection of the running business and receipts therefrom by the Enforcement Department. 11. That apart, the Income Tax statements accompanying the returns are itself prima facie, sufficient evidence, to show that a prosperous business had been kept out of the purview of commercial tax. 12. When the matter had come up before this Court earlier, the petitioner had been directed to produce medical records in support of its request for one more opportunity of hearing to substantiate its case before the authority. Typed set dated 26.08.2019 has been placed on record containing 177 pages of medical tests. There is some objection raised by the respondent counsel concerning genuineness and impact of the documents filed by the petitioner, which I will neither entertain nor refer to in detail. 13. Typed set dated 26.08.2019 has been placed on record containing 177 pages of medical tests. There is some objection raised by the respondent counsel concerning genuineness and impact of the documents filed by the petitioner, which I will neither entertain nor refer to in detail. 13. Suffice it to say that, the fact that the petitioner has established regular visits to medical clinics and has undergone several lab tests persuade me that the petitioner should be heard effectively once, prior to completion of the assessment. 14. I have also no doubt that the petitioner has consciously managed to keep his enterprise out of the rigor of taxation from 2010-11 till detection from the Enforcement Department. For this purpose, though the petitioner is permitted to appear before the Assessing Authority to make out his case and to enable proper and detailed determination of taxable turnover, it is put to terms. 15. The petitioner will remit 50 % of the disputed tax, which works out to a sum of Rs.63,42,276/- within one week from today and upon compliance with the aforesaid condition, will be heard by the respondent on 23.06.2022 at 10.30 a.m. The petitioner will appear with complete particulars in support of its stand in defence to the proposals contained in the notice as well as the impugned order. 16. If the amount as directed above is not remitted within the time stipulated, the orders of assessment will stand revived immediately and without further reference to the petitioner. The hearing scheduled on 23.06.2022 will commence after the assessing officer is fully satisfied with the compliance of the direction, as aforesaid. These writ petitions are disposed in the above terms. Connected miscellaneous petition are closed. No costs.