TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Vigilance and Enforcement Department had authority to inspect the assessee's premises and forward an alert note to the tax authorities, and whether the tax authorities could act on that information; (ii) Whether notices issued under Rule 99(1) read with Section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 were invalid for want of authorization by the Proper Officer.
Issue (i): Whether the Vigilance and Enforcement Department had authority to inspect the assessee's premises and forward an alert note to the tax authorities, and whether the tax authorities could act on that information.
Analysis: The statutory scheme and the Government orders relied upon by the respondents were treated as recognising the revenue-protective function of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department. The information gathered during inspection was viewed as a lawful interdepartmental transmission for safeguarding public revenue. The absence of a requisition under Section 72(2) was held not to negate the independent administrative function of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department in conveying relevant information to the Commercial Tax Department.
Conclusion: The objection to the Vigilance and Enforcement Department's inspection and forwarding of the alert note was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether notices issued under Rule 99(1) read with Section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 were invalid for want of authorization by the Proper Officer.
Analysis: The notices were treated as scrutiny notices under Section 61 and not as inspection, search, or seizure proceedings under Section 67. At the same time, the term "Proper Officer" was held to mean the Chief Commissioner or an officer assigned that function by him under Section 2(91). Since no authorization by the Chief Commissioner was shown for the officer who issued the notices, the notices were found to suffer from want of jurisdictional authorization. The defect was held curable by issuance of fresh notices by the competent authority.
Conclusion: The impugned notices were invalid for want of authorization by the Proper Officer.
Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded, the impugned notices were set aside, and liberty was reserved to issue fresh notices in accordance with the Act and Rules by the competent authority.
Ratio Decidendi: A scrutiny notice under Section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 can be sustained only when issued by the Proper Officer or an officer validly assigned that function by the Chief Commissioner; absence of such authorization vitiates the notice.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
