9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where it was held that 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 impugned assessment order and the Value Added Tax audit report are set aside - petition allowed. - W.P.Nos.25567 to 25570 of 2017 & WMP.Nos.26962 to 26965 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 24-1-2018 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For Petitioner in all W.Ps : Mr.M.MD.Ibrahim Ali For Respondents in all W.Ps : Mr.G.Dhanamadhri ORDER Heard Mr.M.MD.Ibrahim Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.G.Dhanamadhri, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Since the legal issues raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , at the very outset, the only issue, which arises for consideration is whether the assessment orders, which are based on a VAT Audit triggered by a Joint Commissioner, could be sustained, in view of the provisions of Section 64(4) of the 2006 Act. 7.1. To put it plainly, the petitioner's contention is, that, the audit was ordered by an Officer, who was not vested with the requisite power under Section 64(4) of the 2006 Act, and therefore, once the edifice is removed, the impugned orders should fall by the way side. 7.2. In order to appreciate this submission, it would be pertinent to extract the relevant provisions of the 2006 Act : 64. Maintenance of upto date, true and correct accounts and records by dealers - ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was authorised by the Joint Commissioner. 8.1. The Commissioner, under the provisions of Section 64(4) of the 2006 Act, could not have delegated his power to order an audit qua a dealer to the Joint Commissioner. 8.2. Mr.Annamalai's submission that the power was exercised, in fact, by the Commissioner; is a submission, which is based on the contents of the proceedings dated 16.05.2014. This submission, to my mind, cannot be sustained for the reasons given hereafter. 8.3. Paragraph 1 of the proceedings dated 16.05.2014, would show that the registered dealers, whose names are, evidently, mentioned in the Annexure said to be appended to the said proceeding, have, apparently, been selected based on the parameters set out i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conduct an audit, keeping in mind that the audit was conducted by the Officers, who were not below the rank of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. 8.5. Pertinently and rather curiously, the annexure appended to the aforesaid proceedings has not been placed on record by the respondents. Therefore, the names of the entities, supposedly, identified for conduct of VAT audit are not known. Therefore, it is quite possible that the petitioner's case was not even picked up for conduct of audit. 8.6. Furthermore, a plain reading of paragraph 3 of the proceedings dated 16.05.2014, would show that the Commissioner appears to have delegated the power to authorise conduct of VAT audit, to the Joint Commissioners of the Enforcement Wing. This, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of that VAT Audit was not accepted by the petitioner, and therefore, the impugned assessments orders were without jurisdiction. 9.5. I am inclined to accept the submission of the petitioner that 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. 10. Accordingly, the prayer made in the writ petition is allowed. The assessment orders and the VAT Audit reports are set aside. Liberty is, however, given to the respondents to conduct a fresh VAT audit, if necessary, and pass fresh assessment orders, albeit, in accordance with law. 11. The writ petitions are closed in the aforesaid term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
