Commissioner-led VAT audit authorisation upheld where subordinate officers only implemented the audit order.

Section 64(4) of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act requires the Commissioner to order an audit, while allowing the audit to be carried out by an officer of the prescribed rank. The record showed that the Commissioner selected dealers on risk parameters and directed the departmental hierarchy to implement the audit through the appropriate officers. The use of the word "authorised" in the field officer's statement did not show that the Joint Commissioner had assumed the Commissioner's statutory function. The audit notice was therefore not invalid for lack of jurisdiction, and the arrangement was treated as permissible implementation rather than impermissible sub-delegation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the VAT audit and consequential notice were jurisdiction on the ground that the audit was authorised through the Joint Commissioner instead of the Commissioner under Section 64(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act.

Analysis: Section 64(4) empowers the Commissioner to order audit of the business of a registered dealer by an officer of the prescribed rank and indicates the classes of dealers who may be selected for audit. The proceedings produced before the Court showed that the Commissioner had selected the dealers, including the petitioner, on specified risk parameters and had directed the Enforcement Wing hierarchy to implement the audit through officers of the appropriate rank. The use of the expression "authorised" in the field officer's statement did not establish that the Joint Commissioner had independently assumed the Commissioner's statutory function. The Court distinguished earlier decisions on the ground that, in those cases, the record did not show a Commissioner's order identifying the dealer or authorising the audit in the manner disclosed here.

Conclusion: The audit was held to be authorised by the Commissioner in accordance with Section 64(4) and was not vitiated for want of jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute requires the Commissioner to order audit but permits the audit to be carried out by officers of prescribed rank, a Commissioner's selection order followed by departmental implementation through subordinate officers is not impermissible sub-delegation.

---