Section 32A jurisdiction fails when dealer expressly rejects the audit recommendation, invalidating the demand notice.

Section 32A of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 applies only where the Accountant's audit recommendation is accepted by the dealer, in whole or in part, because that acceptance supplies the jurisdictional basis for the summary demand mechanism. Here, the audit report recorded the dealer's express disagreement with the recommendation, so the statutory condition precedent was not met and the demand notice could not be issued under Section 32A. Section 32A(2) was confined to the interest consequence once sub-section (1) was otherwise validly attracted and did not create an independent source of jurisdiction. The notice was therefore without jurisdiction and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether a demand notice issued under Section 32A of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 was without jurisdiction when the audit report itself recorded the dealer's express disagreement with the Accountant's recommendation.

Analysis: Section 32A is attracted only when, after audit, the Commissioner notices that the Accountant has made a recommendation and the dealer has accepted that recommendation, wholly or partly. The dealer's acceptance operates as the jurisdictional foundation for invoking the summary demand mechanism, reflecting an admission of liability and dispensing with the ordinary adjudicatory process. On the audit report, the dealer had clearly stated that the auditor's recommendation was not acceptable. That express disagreement negatived the statutory condition precedent for action under Section 32A. Section 32A(2) was held to deal only with the interest consequence where sub-section (1) is otherwise attracted and did not create an independent source of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The demand notice under Section 32A was without jurisdiction and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---