9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o pass the assessment orders. The jurisdiction to conduct VAT audit, which was authorised by the Joint Commissioner was not accepted by the petitioner and therefore, the assessment orders passed were also without jurisdiction. The assessment orders and the VAT Audit reports are set aside - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - W.P.Nos.32566 and 32641 to 32645 of 2016 and WMP Nos.28219 and 28280 to 28284 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 11-1-2017 - Rajiv Shakdher, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.C.Bakthasiromoni For the Respondents : Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai ORDER 1. The captioned writ petitions challenge five (5) separate Assessment Orders of even date, i.e., 10.08.2016, pertaining to Assessment Years (AY) 2010-2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner. 3.5. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the VAT audit was conducted, based on the authorisation of the Joint Commissioner, is sought to be established by relying upon an extract of the statement made by the petitioner, before the second respondent, after completion of the VAT audit. 3.6. For the sake of convenience, the said extract is set forth hereafter : On 14.04.2015 at 10.30 A.M. yourself along with the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer have visited our place of business, and introduced yourselves as Officers of Enforcement Wing of Commercial Taxes Department and informed that you have come for VAT Audit of our firm, as per the Authorisation issued by the Joint Commissioner (CT) Enforcement-II, Chenn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Joint Commissioner (CT) and Others; and the order dated 25.02.2016, passed in W.P.No.31616 of 2015, titled : M/s.Cabco Paradise Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Joint Commissioner (CT) and Others. 5.2. Furthermore, Mr.Siromani, also states that, since, the statute has provided a particular mode and manner, in which, the power had to be exercised, it can be exercised only in that manner, and not otherwise. 5.3. For this purpose, learned counsel seeks to place reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Meera Sahni Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, 2008 (9) SCC 177. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. As indicated, at the very outset, the only issue, which arises for consideration i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Commissioner. (emphasis is mine) 7.3. A bare perusal of Section 64(4) of the Act would show that the Commissioner may order for audit of the business of any registered dealer by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. The selection of dealers for audit is to be made from amongst the dealers, who fall in any one, or, more of the five categories set out in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 64. 8. Quite clearly, as has been correctly argued by Mr.Siromani, the audit can only be ordered by the Commissioner. In this case, as is evident from the statement of the petitioner, as recorded by the second respondent himself, the audit was authorised by the Joint Commissioner. 8.1. The Commissioner, under the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax 90% of VAT payable on value of such inward goods. (v) Dealers who effected total purchase of goods from R.C. Cancelled dears and claimed ITC of more than ₹ 10,000/- in 2013-14. (vi) Dealers who had paid average net VAT of ₹ 50,000/- and above every month in 2013-14 and such payment of tax remained within the range of + or 5% of the average for atleast 9 months. 8.4. Paragraph 3 of the very same proceedings is indicative of the fact that the Joint Commissioners of the Enforcement Wing have been asked to authorise the Officers to conduct an audit, keeping in mind that the audit was conducted by the Officers, who were not bel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to a challenge laid to the VAT Audit report dated 24.01.2014. 9.2. As indicated above, this is a case, where, after the VAT Audit was over, the assessment orders were passed. 9.3. The record, however, shows that after the audit was conducted and the statement of the petitioner was recorded, it was placed before him and the petitioner appears not to have signed the statement. There is, in that sense, no acquiescence on the part of the petitioners, though, based on the VAT audit report, respondent No.3, proceeded to pass the assessment orders. 9.4. It is, therefore, the argument of Mr.Siromani that the legal validity of that VAT Audit was not accepted by the petitioner, and therefore, the impugned assessments orders were without juri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
