JOINT COMMISSIONER Vs. ORIGINAL VEL SPORTING NEWS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revenue has filed this writ appeal aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dtd. 26/7/2017, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent assessee, M/s.Original Vel Sporting News vs. Joint Commissioner (CT), Enforcement-1, Chennai and others.

(2.) The learned Single Judge held that the order of the learned Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, directing audit of the business of assessee dealer for period in question was not sustainable, as it did not satisfy the conditions and criteria laid down in Sec. 64(4) of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as Act). The learned Single Judge held that no individual order was given by the Commissioner to direct such audit of the business of the respondent dealers and that the Joint Commissioner, a lower Authority, was not empowered to order any such audit of the particular business dealer, as there was no authorisation or delegation by the Commissioner possible in terms of Sec. 64(4) of the Act. The order of the learned Commissioner was therefore quashed. Being aggrieved by the same, the Revenue has filed the present Writ Appeal before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Revenue Mr.Mohammed Shafiq, with due emphasis, sought to submit that there was a due and proper authorisation in the impugned order for audit under Sec. 64(4) of the Act by the learned Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai-5 and under the impugned order No.Q3/11740/2013 dtd. 16/5/2014, the learned Commissioner had selected the Registered dealers as per the list annexed with the said order comprising of Registration Numbers, TIN Numbers and names of 94 dealers, who were selected on the basis of the following parameters for conducting VAT audit by Enforcement Wing officials. The said order enumerates the following parameters for such selection of the registered dealers: