2015 (3) TMI 522 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of impugned order passed - Jurisdiction error - Held that - there is no dispute with regard to the fact that both the respondents have got concurrent jurisdiction. However, once an order has been passed by the superior officer, the officer, lower in rank, cannot decide the application under Section 27 of the Act with regard to escape turn over. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Allahabad High court in Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. Kumar Brothers 1982 (1) TMI 179 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT and the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Valvoline Cummins Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and another 2008 (5) TMI 20 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI - order has been passed by the first respondent, who is admittedly lower in rank to that of the second respondent. Nowhere in the provisions of the Act, it is stated that an officer lower in rank cannot decide the application. The provision to Section 2(5) of the Act makes it very clear that any assessing officer is empowered to make assessment under this Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdictional flaw in revised assessment order

Analysis:
The writ petitioner sought to quash the Revised Assessment Order dated 29.05.2014, passed by the first respondent, claiming a serious jurisdictional flaw as the first respondent, inferior in rank to the second respondent, revised the original assessment order. The petitioner argued that Section 22(2) and 27(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 were violated.

In response, the Additional Government Pleader contended that since both authorities had concurrent jurisdiction, the order by the first respondent was not unlawful. Referring to Sections 2(5) and 48 of the Act, the Additional Government Pleader highlighted the provisions related to the appointment of assessing authorities.

The petitioner acknowledged the concurrent jurisdiction but emphasized that once a superior officer had passed an order, a lower-ranking officer could not decide on the same matter under Section 27 of the Act. Citing judgments from the Allahabad High Court and the Delhi High Court, the petitioner argued against the first respondent's authority to revise the assessment order.

The Court noted that the first respondent, being lower in rank, had passed the order. While the Act empowered any assessing officer to make assessments, the Court referred to the Allahabad High Court's decision, emphasizing that an inferior authority should not set aside an order affirmed by a superior authority unless permitted by specific provisions. The Delhi High Court's decision further clarified the distinction between concurrent and joint exercise of power, supporting the petitioner's argument.

Consequently, the Court allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the Revised Assessment Order and remanding the matter to the second respondent for fresh consideration in accordance with the law, granting the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The petitioner was directed to appear before the second respondent on a specified date, with no costs imposed.