Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2018 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 1239 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxJurisdiction - Validity of VAT Audit report - consequential notice issued calling upon the petitioner to produce records on a particular date - Challenge to the VAT Audit is on the ground that it is without jurisdiction, as the VAT Audit has been authorised by the Joint Commissioner and not the Commissioner - principle of delegates non potest delegate. Held that:- Mere usage of the expression authorised by the Joint Commissioner in his proceedings, does not mean that the Joint Commissioner has commenced the audit on his own accord. It has to be borne in mind that the statute uses the expression “order”, and does not use the expression “authorise”. Thus, what is required under Section 64(4) is an order of the Commissioner and if there is an order to the said effect, then authorisation of lower level officers, by officers subordinate to the Commissioner, cannot be termed as ordering an audit, but it is a proceedings by which the order passed by the Commissioner, is implemented or carried forward. The factual matrix in the present case is different from that of the case dealt with by the Court in Jeevan Buy N.Save [2017 (2) TMI 180 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], in the sense that the name of the petitioner finds place in the proceedings of the Commissioner. The Commissioner has exercised his power under Section 64(4) of the TNVAT Act and it is he who has authorised the VAT Audit. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
|