Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner acting under Section 43(1) of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 is obliged to give notice, an opportunity of hearing and a reasoned order before selecting an assessee for audit.
Analysis: Section 43(1) requires the Commissioner to select a prescribed percentage or class of dealers for audit on a random basis, upon information, or otherwise. The statute does not expressly provide for a hearing at the stage of selection, while later stages under sub-sections (2) and (3) contemplate notice and participation in the audit process. The selection mechanism is distinct from the special audit regime under Section 43AB and is not comparable to Section 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Reading a pre-selection hearing into Section 43(1) would undermine the statutory scheme of random or percentage-based selection and would be excluded by necessary implication. Subjecting a dealer to selection for audit, by itself, does not create such adverse civil consequences as to require prior hearing at that stage.
Conclusion: The issue was answered in the negative. The Commissioner is not obliged to give prior notice, hearing, or a reasoned order before making selection under Section 43(1), and the challenge failed.