2018 (2) TMI 1169

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in this writ petition have been decided earlier by this Court, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner has challenged an order of assessment passed by the 4th respondent dated 18.08.2017 for the assessment year 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16. Challenge to the impugned proceedings is on the sole ground that the orders are passed as a result of Value Added Tax Audit which was authorised by the Joint Commissioner, who has not vested with powers under Section 64(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. On a perusal of the statement recorded from the petitioner by the Inspecting Officer on 04.01.2016, it is seen that there is a clear reference to the authorisation issued by the Joint Commissioner (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dealers - (1) ..... (2) ..... (3) ..... (4) The Commissioner may order for audit of the business of any registered dealer by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. For the purpose of this section, the selection of dealers for audit shall be made from amongst the dealers,- (a) who have not filed returns within the prescribed period; or (b) who have claimed exorbitant amount of refund of tax; or (c) who have filed returns, but in the opinion of the Commissioner he is not satisfied with the correctness of any return filed, any claim made, deduction claimed or turnover disclosed in any such return; or (d) on the basis of any other criteria or on a ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing, have, apparently, been selected based on the parameters set out in the aforesaid paragraph. These parameters are summarised in paragraph 1, which, for the sake of convenience, are extracted hereafter: Sl. No. Parameters (i) Dealers whose total turnover (VAT + CST) is more than Rs. 50 crores in 2013-14 and who have not been subjected to audit so far since 01/01/2017. (ii) Dealers (Traders only) whose total output tax < 90% of total input tax in 2013-14. (iii) Dealers whose value of inter-state branch/consignment transfer has increased more than 20% in 2013-14 over previous year. (iv) Dealers who made import / interstate purchase / transfer of taxable goods in 2013-14 and whose output tax <90% of VAT payable....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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, passed in W.P.No.7564 of 2015, titled : M/s.Arkema Peroxides India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Joint Commissioner (CT) and Others, and the order dated 25.02.2016, passed in W.P.No.31616 of 2015, titled : M/s.Cabco Paradise Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Joint Commissioner (CT) and Others. 9.1. To be noted, the first order, i.e., order dated 18.03.2015, pertains to a case, where, challenge was made to an intimation dated 31.12.2014, which is a stage, prior to the passing of the assessment order. The second order pertains to a challenge laid to the VAT Audit report dated 24.01.2014. ....