Jurisdictional objection must be decided first when audit and assessment involve the same officer, before merits are examined.

An adjudicating authority must decide a taxpayer's jurisdictional objection first where the objection is that the same officer who conducted the audit should not proceed with the assessment. The Karnataka High Court treated this as a threshold jurisdiction and natural justice issue, requiring it to be recorded and resolved before any merits-based determination. The assessee was directed to raise the objection before the authority, with liberty for administrative clarification if needed. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration in that sequence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudicating authority was required to first decide the petitioner's objection to jurisdiction, including the objection that the same officer who conducted the audit should not proceed with the assessment, before considering the matter on merits.

Analysis: The petitioner questioned the Order-in-Original and the show-cause notice on the ground that the authority acting in assessment had earlier been involved in audit proceedings, giving rise to a jurisdictional and natural justice objection. The Court noted that this issue is frequently raised by assessees and that it should receive adjudication by the appropriate authority. It therefore directed the petitioner to raise the jurisdictional objection before the adjudicating authority, with liberty to that authority to seek administrative clarification from the officer who made the assignment if necessary, and required the jurisdictional aspect to be recorded first before any merits determination.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection was required to be decided first, and the proceedings were to be reconsidered accordingly; the impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted.

---