Jurisdictional objection must be decided first before merits when audit and assessment are handled by the same officer.

A jurisdictional objection that the same officer who handled the audit proceedings proceeded with the assessment was required to be decided at the threshold before merits. The Court observed that, once such an objection is raised, the adjudicating authority should first record a finding on competence and may seek administrative directions if necessary, before examining the dispute substantively. Because that objection had not been finally determined, the impugned assessment order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration, with merits stayed until jurisdiction was decided.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the validity of the order-in-original could be challenged on the ground that the same officer who had conducted the audit proceedings proceeded with the assessment, and whether the jurisdictional objection ought to be examined before proceeding on merits; (ii) Whether the matter required remand for adjudication of the jurisdictional objection and consequential reconsideration.

Issue (i): Whether the validity of the order-in-original could be challenged on the ground that the same officer who had conducted the audit proceedings proceeded with the assessment, and whether the jurisdictional objection ought to be examined before proceeding on merits?

Analysis: The objection raised was that the adjudicating authority should not be guided by findings recorded at the audit stage and that the procedure reflected in the circulars relied upon by the petitioner indicated that the jurisdictional issue should first be addressed. The Court noted that such objections are frequently raised and that the appropriate authority should adjudicate the issue at the threshold. It further observed that, upon such objection being raised, the authority could seek administrative orders from the assigning authority, and the jurisdictional aspect should be recorded before merits are examined.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection was directed to be examined by the adjudicating authority before any decision on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether the matter required remand for adjudication of the jurisdictional objection and consequential reconsideration?

Analysis: Since the jurisdictional objection had not been finally adjudicated and the Court considered it appropriate that the issue receive consideration by the competent authority, the impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted for reconsideration in light of the observations made. The authority was restrained from taking steps on merits until the jurisdictional finding was recorded.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded for fresh consideration after deciding the jurisdictional objection.

Final Conclusion: The impugned assessment order did not survive, and the adjudicating authority was required to first determine jurisdiction before proceeding further on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A jurisdictional objection affecting the competence of the adjudicating authority must be decided at the threshold before the authority proceeds to determine the dispute on merits.

---