https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193300 Section 41 of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 and Rule 41 of the Orissa Value Added Tax Rules, 2004 were upheld as a valid tax-audit framework because they permit selection of dealers on random, risk-based or other objective criteria to detect evasion and secure compliance. The Court held that the possibility of repeated audit within an audit cycle does not make the scheme arbitrary, and the audit cycle does not limit the Commissioner's authority where objective grounds justify further scrutiny. The constitutional challenge was rejected, although limited consequential relief was granted in relation to the impugned audit notice and the manner in which assessment was to proceed. en-us Thu, 20 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Jul 2017 12:27:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193300 Section 41 of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 and Rule 41 of the Orissa Value Added Tax Rules, 2004 were upheld as a valid tax-audit framework because they permit selection of dealers on random, risk-based or other objective criteria to detect evasion and secure compliance. The Court held that the possibility of repeated audit within an audit cycle does not make the scheme arbitrary, and the audit cycle does not limit the Commissioner's authority where objective grounds justify further scrutiny. The constitutional challenge was rejected, although limited consequential relief was granted in relation to the impugned audit notice and the manner in which assessment was to proceed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 20 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193300