https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367151 Where the Commissioner had issued the statutory order for VAT audit, departmental officers could carry out the audit as administrative implementation, and that process did not amount to impermissible sub-delegation or want of jurisdiction under Section 64(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The Court found that the records showed the Commissioner had selected dealers for audit on specified risk parameters, while the officers only executed the audit programme, so the jurisdictional challenge failed and the audit was upheld. It also applied the settled rule that enforcement officers cannot collect tax amounts as advance recovery during inspection, and directed return of the cheques collected from the dealer. en-us Tue, 12 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Sep 2018 07:37:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367151 Where the Commissioner had issued the statutory order for VAT audit, departmental officers could carry out the audit as administrative implementation, and that process did not amount to impermissible sub-delegation or want of jurisdiction under Section 64(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The Court found that the records showed the Commissioner had selected dealers for audit on specified risk parameters, while the officers only executed the audit programme, so the jurisdictional challenge failed and the audit was upheld. It also applied the settled rule that enforcement officers cannot collect tax amounts as advance recovery during inspection, and directed return of the cheques collected from the dealer. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 12 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367151