VAT audit authorization remains valid when ordered by the Commissioner and carried out through the prescribed departmental rank.

An audit under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 is not invalid merely because the Commissioner issues a common administrative authorization through the departmental hierarchy. Where the Commissioner identifies dealers for audit and directs Joint Commissioners (Enforcement) to arrange it, the requirement in Section 64(4) is satisfied if the audit is conducted by an officer of the prescribed rank. The presence of a Commercial Tax Officer during the audit did not, by itself, show lack of jurisdiction or statutory breach. No prejudice was shown from the audit report, and the dealer could still contest any later notice or assessment under the Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether the VAT audit report was vitiated for want of jurisdiction on the ground that the audit was conducted pursuant to authorization under Section 64(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

Analysis: Section 64(4) permits the Commissioner to order audit of the business of a registered dealer by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. The authorization produced showed that the Commissioner had identified the dealers for audit and had issued a common direction to the Joint Commissioners (Enforcement) to arrange the audit. The audit was carried out in the departmental hierarchy with the assistance of a Commercial Tax Officer, and the mere presence of such officer during the audit did not establish that the audit itself was conducted in violation of the statutory requirement. The Court also held that no prejudice was shown from the audit report and that the petitioner would have an opportunity to contest any future notice or assessment proceedings under Section 27 of the Act.

Conclusion: The challenge to the VAT audit report failed; the authorization and audit were held to be in accordance with law and not invalid for want of jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits, and the respondents were left free to proceed with notice and further action in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An audit under Section 64(4) is not invalid merely because the Commissioner issues a common administrative authorization through the departmental chain, so long as the audit is ordered by the Commissioner and conducted through an officer of the prescribed rank.

---