2017 (7) TMI 1151

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... same, these Writ Petitions are taken up together for final disposal. 2. The petitioner, in all these Writ Petitions has challenged various proceedings, which are notices, intimation and orders of the assessment on the ground that the proceedings are vitiated for lack of jurisdiction. 3. The legal issue, which arises for consideration in these Writ Petitions lie in a narrow compass, and therefore, it may not be necessary for this Court to elaborately refer to the factual aspects. However, to make things clear, the following facts are needed:- i) Writ Petitions, bearing Nos.30098, 30099, 30100, 30101, 30102 and 32479 of 2016 have been filed challenging the notices issued under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (herein....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....), Chennai 06, dated 10.06.2015, which clearly states that, VAT Audit is done, as per the authorization issued by the Joint Commissioner (CT), Enforcement-1, Chennai, in proceedings dated 03.09.2014. 5. Thus, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the initiation of the proceedings itself, being without jurisdiction, the same goes to the root of the matter, vitiating the impugned notices and orders of assessment. In support of this contention, the learned counsel referred to the decision of this Court, in the case of [ The Joint Commissioner (CT)] in W.P.No.31616 of 2015, dated 25.02.2016, wherein, the Government accepted the stand that the Joint Commissioner (CT) has no authority to authorize the Depu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of list of defaulting dealers from the Commissioner, issue instructions to their subordinates to conduct VAT audit in their respective divisions. 8. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner cannot expect the Commissioner to give authorization to each and every subordinate under his control. It is further contended that, to implement the orders of the Commissioner, the Joint Commissioner of Enforcement Wing directed the officials under their control for making viz., VAT Audit, as the case may be, and therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner is incorrect. 9. The learned Government Advocate also endeavoured to make submissions on the merits of the orders of assessment in two cases, viz., in....