Turnover-escaping assessment by authorised officer upheld where audit assessment was time-barred and statutory conditions were met.

An officer authorised by the Commissioner to perform Assessing Officer functions under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act could validly invoke Section 25 for turnover-escaping assessment. The definition of Assessing Officer in Section 2(v) was held broad enough to include an authorised officer, so jurisdiction was not confined to the regular officer in charge of the assessee. The existence of audit powers under Section 24 did not bar recourse to Section 25 where the audit assessment had become time-barred and the statutory conditions for escaped assessment were otherwise satisfied. The turnover-escaping assessment was therefore within jurisdiction and not invalid for want of authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether an Audit Officer, if authorised as an Assessing Officer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, can validly invoke Section 25 to make a turnover-escaping assessment notwithstanding that his usual function is audit assessment under Section 24.

Analysis: Section 25 empowers an Assessing Officer to make turnover-escaping assessment, and the definition clause in Section 2(v) permits the Commissioner to authorise any officer to perform the functions of an Assessing Officer. The officer in question was authorised to discharge Assessing Officer functions. The Court held that the meaning of Assessing Officer under Section 25 is not confined to the regular officer in charge of the assessee, and an authorised officer may take over those functions where the statutory conditions for escaped assessment exist. The existence of audit powers under Section 24 does not exclude the exercise of Section 25 powers when assessment under Section 24 is time-barred and the case otherwise falls within Section 25.

Conclusion: The Audit Officer had jurisdiction to pass the turnover-escaping assessment under Section 25, and the order could not be challenged for want of jurisdiction.

---