9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 269 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of surprise inspection report TNVAT Act, 2006 power of officers to conduct surprise inspection or record statement or seize documents writ jurisdiction section 48 of TNVAT Act section 65 of TNVAT Act rule 20 of TNVAT Rules Held that - the petitioner need not have any apprehension that their rights and remedies will stand foreclosed, if they allow the impugned inspection report and the statement to stand. It is always well open to the petitioner to contest the merits of the matter, when the assessing officer takes up the issue - Since the petitioner has raised the question of jurisdiction and the respondents have stated that there is delegation of power, this Court is not inclined to quash the inspection report or the statement - jurisdiction left open to be canvassed by the petitioner as and when notice is issued by the assessing officer petition disposed off decided against petitioner.
Issues:
Challenge to surprise inspection report and recorded statement jurisdiction. Analysis: In this case, the petitioner challenged the surprise inspection report and recorded statement, arguing that the first respondent lacked jurisdiction to conduct such actions. The petitioner contended that the officer in the rank of a Commercial Tax Officer had no power under Section 48 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act) to carry out the inspection, record statements, or seize records. Additionally, the petitioner's counsel pointed out that the petitioner was not conducting business within the jurisdiction of the first respondent and was not registered as a dealer in that assessment circle. Reference was made to Section 65 of the TNVAT Act and Rule 20 of the TNVAT Rules to support the argument that the Commercial Tax Officer did not have the authority to conduct the inspection or record statements. The Additional Government Pleader, representing the respondents, argued that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had the authority throughout Tamil Nadu and could delegate powers to other officers. It was mentioned that the Joint Commissioner (CT), Enforcement, Chennai, was authorized to conduct a surprise inspection of the petitioner's company, M/s.Kadhir Traders Group of Companies. The authorization allowed for the engagement of officials from other enforcement divisions as needed, indicating that the officer who conducted the inspection had the necessary powers. Upon considering the arguments and reviewing the materials, the court noted that a writ of certiorari could not be issued to quash the inspection report, seizure mahazar, or the recorded statement. The court highlighted that the petitioner could challenge the statement before the assessing officer during the assessment process and that the assessing officer was not bound solely by the statement recorded by the Enforcement Officials. The court emphasized that the petitioner's rights and remedies were not foreclosed by allowing the inspection report and statement to stand. The court decided not to quash the inspection report or statement at that stage, leaving the jurisdiction issue to be raised by the petitioner when notice was issued by the assessing officer. In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with the observation that the petitioner could contest the jurisdiction issue at the appropriate stage. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
|
