2016 (9) TMI 720 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Legality - surprise inspection - recorded statement - jurisdiction of respondent - delegation of power - Commercial Tax Officer - Assessing Officer - Commissioner of Commercial Taxes - Section 48 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Section 65 of the TNVAT Act - Held that - writ of certiorari cannot be issued, quashing the inspection report or the seizure mahazar or the statement recorded from the dealer. The petitioner would state that the officer does not posses the jurisdiction to record the statement or prepare the inspection report or seize the documents. But however, it appears that the documents were seized from the place of business of the petitioner. Therefore, if the petitioner has any reservations on the statement given by them before the Enforcement Officials, it is always open to the petitioner to raise contention before the assessing officer and it is a settled legal position that the assessing officer, while completing the assessment, cannot solely be guided by the statement recorded by the Enforcement Officials - petition disposed off - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to surprise inspection reports, jurisdiction of the first respondent, legality of inspection and statement recording, powers of Commercial Tax Officer, delegation of powers by Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the surprise inspection reports and statements recorded by the first respondent, arguing lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner contended that the Commercial Tax Officer had no authority under Section 48 of the TNVAT Act to conduct such inspections or seize records. Additionally, reference was made to Section 65 of the TNVAT Act, highlighting that the Assessing Officer should have the power, which the petitioner claimed was not the case. Rule 20 of the TNVAT Rules was also cited to support the argument that a Commercial Tax Officer lacked the authority for such actions.

The petitioner further referred to a Notification issued under the erstwhile Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, similar to Section 65 of the TNVAT Act, to emphasize that the officer's actions were without jurisdiction. On the other hand, the Additional Government Pleader defended the inspection based on Section 48 of the TNVAT Act, stating that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes could delegate powers to officers within Tamil Nadu. The authorization given to the Joint Commissioner (CT), Enforcement, Coimbatore, to conduct the inspection was highlighted as evidence of valid authority.

Upon review of the arguments and materials, the Court noted that a writ of certiorari could not be issued to quash the inspection report, seizure mahazar, or statements recorded. The Court emphasized that the assessing officer could not solely rely on statements from enforcement officials during assessment. The petitioner was advised to contest the matter before the assessing officer and raise jurisdictional issues at that stage. As the question of jurisdiction was left open for the petitioner to raise before the assessing officer, the Court disposed of the writ petition without costs.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the challenge to the surprise inspection reports and the jurisdiction of the first respondent. It clarified the powers of the Commercial Tax Officer under the TNVAT Act and the delegation of authority by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The Court's decision focused on the petitioner's rights to contest the matter during assessment and allowed for jurisdictional issues to be raised at the appropriate stage, without quashing the inspection report or statements at that juncture.