TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 180
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. To be noted, the orders have been passed by the third respondent. 2. Pertinently, the petitioner's challenge to the impugned orders is made on, one, singular ground, which is, that the said orders are based on the result of a VAT audit, which was authorised by the Joint Commissioner, who was not vested with the necessary power under Section 64(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (in short the 2006 Act ). 3. Given the aforesaid submission, the following facts are required to be noticed for the purpose of adjudicating upon the captioned writ petitions : 3.1. The petitioner is a registered dealer on the file of the third respondent. The petitioner claims that he has been regular....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-600 006. I am the Proprietor of the Firm, and I am well aware with the matters pertaining to Sales Tax, and I was present at that time of your visit and made my help till the completion of verification and furnished all the information's as required by the Audit." 4. The aforementioned facts are not disputed before me, by Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, who appears for the respondents. 4.1. It is, however, the contention of Mr.Annamalai, based on the proceedings dated 16.05.2014, that, in fact, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai, had exercised the power of ordering VAT audit under Section 64(4) of the 2006 Act, and that, only the execution of the audit was left, albeit, to the respective Joint Commissioners of the Enf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hether the assessment orders, which are based on a VAT Audit triggered by a Joint Commissioner, could be sustained, in view of the provisions of Section 64(4) of the 2006 Act. 7.1. To put it plainly, the petitioner's contention is, that, the audit was ordered by an Officer, who was not vested with the requisite power under Section 64(4) of the 2006 Act, and therefore, once the edifice is removed, the impugned orders should fall by the way side. 7.2. In order to appreciate this submission, it would be pertinent to extract the relevant provisions of the 2006 Act : "64. Maintenance of upto date, true and correct accounts and records by dealers - (1) ..... (2) ..... (3) ..... (4) The Commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8.1. The Commissioner, under the provisions of Section 64(4) of the 2006 Act, could not have delegated his power to order an audit qua a dealer to the Joint Commissioner. 8.2. Mr.Annamalai's submission that the power was exercised, in fact, by the Commissioner; is a submission, which is based on the contents of the proceedings dated 16.05.2014. This submission, to my mind, cannot be sustained for the reasons given hereafter. 8.3. Paragraph 1 of the proceedings dated 16.05.2014, would show that the registered dealers, whose names are, evidently, mentioned in the Annexure said to be appended to the said proceeding, have, apparently, been selected based on the parameters set out in the aforesaid paragraph. These parameters are sum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dentified for conduct of VAT audit are not known. Therefore, it is quite possible that the petitioner's case was not even picked up for conduct of audit. 8.6. Furthermore, a plain reading of paragraph 3 of the proceedings dated 16.05.2014, would show that the Commissioner appears to have delegated the power to authorise conduct of VAT audit, to the Joint Commissioners of the Enforcement Wing. This, according to me, is not in consonance with plain provisions of Section 64(4) of the 2006 Act. 8.7. Therefore, as indicated above, this submission made by Mr.Annamalai, on behalf of the respondents, cannot be sustained. 9. Mr.Siromoni, in support of his submissions, has relied upon the order of this Court, i.e., order dated 18.03.2015....