2017 (7) TMI 1151 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Jurisdiction - validity of various proceedings, which are notices, intimation and orders of the assessment - authorization has been made by the Joint Commissioner, who has got no jurisdiction to do so - delegation of power not allowed - Section 64 (4) of the TNVAT Act - Held that - This Court is not inclined to consider the submission on merits, since the petitioner s case is pitched on the jurisdiction of the officer, who had authorized to conduct VAT Audit - In the common counter affidavit filed by the respondents, there are clear and candid admissions by the respondents that the statute prescribes that the Commissioner alone can authorize the VAT Audit under Section 64 (4) of the TNVAT Act - Further, the statute also does not provide for delegation of such power to the Joint Commissioner. The impugned notices and orders of assessment are set aside, including the VAT audit report - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenging various proceedings on the ground of lack of jurisdiction under the TNVAT Act.

Detailed Analysis:
The petitioner challenged notices, intimation, and assessment orders on the basis of lack of jurisdiction. The issue revolved around the authorization for VAT audit under Section 64 of the TNVAT Act. The petitioner argued that the Commissioner, not the Joint Commissioner, should authorize the audit. Reference was made to previous court decisions highlighting the need for proper authorization by the Commissioner for conducting VAT audits.

The petitioner contended that the initiation of proceedings without proper jurisdiction rendered the notices and assessment orders invalid. The learned counsel emphasized that the Joint Commissioner did not have the authority to authorize the audit, as per Section 64(4) of the TNVAT Act. The Government Advocate argued that the Commissioner cannot personally authorize every audit and that the Joint Commissioners play a role in executing the Commissioner's instructions within their divisions.

The Court considered the jurisdictional issue as crucial, setting aside the impugned notices and assessment orders due to lack of proper authorization for the VAT audit. The Court relied on previous judgments and the TNVAT Act's requirement for the Commissioner to authorize such audits. The respondents' admission in the counter affidavit regarding the Commissioner's sole authority for authorization further supported the Court's decision to quash the proceedings.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the writ petitions, nullifying the notices, assessment orders, and VAT audit report. The respondents were granted liberty to conduct a fresh audit if necessary, emphasizing compliance with the law. No costs were awarded, and the connected petitions were closed, resolving the jurisdictional issue under the TNVAT Act.