Statutory precondition for scrutiny powers: section 27 cannot bypass section 24(2) notice or assessment limitation.

Section 27 scrutiny under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act could be used only after compliance with the notice requirement in section 24(2), because the scrutiny power is confined to registered dealers whose returns are brought within that statutory framework. The provision authorises only limited prima facie adjustment of mistakes in returns and cannot be invoked as a substitute for regular assessment proceedings or as a device to bypass the five-year limitation governing assessments under Chapter V. In the absence of a section 24(2) notice, the authority lacked jurisdiction to proceed under section 27, and the resulting demands and orders were invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the taxing authority could invoke the power of scrutiny and demand recovery under section 27 of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 without a notice issued under section 24(2), and whether such resort could be used to bypass the limitation applicable to assessment proceedings.

Analysis: Section 24 distinguishes between the obligation of a registered dealer to furnish returns and the special case where the Commissioner, on forming the requisite belief, issues notice requiring a person to furnish return as if registered. Section 27 is confined to scrutiny of returns of a registered dealer to whom notice has been issued under section 24, and the power under section 27(2) is only for detecting mistakes in such scrutiny and making prima facie adjustments by way of notice for extra tax and interest. The scheme of Chapter V separately provides for self-assessment, provisional assessment, audit assessment and turnover escaping assessment, while section 33 imposes a five-year bar on assessment under sections 31 and 32. In the absence of a notice under section 24(2), the authority lacked the jurisdictional basis to proceed under section 27, and that provision could not be used to circumvent the limitation attached to assessment proceedings.

Conclusion: Invocation of section 27 without compliance with section 24(2) was invalid, and the impugned orders and consequential demands were liable to be set aside in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A power of summary scrutiny and recovery cannot be exercised unless the statutory precondition for that power is satisfied, and a limited adjustment mechanism cannot be used to defeat the limitation prescribed for regular assessment.

---