JUDGMENT : Vineet Kothari, J. 1. The Revenue has filed this Writ Appeal aggrieved by the Order of the learned Single Judge, dated 26.7.2017, allowing the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent-Assessee, Original Vel Sporting News v. Joint Commissioner (CT), Enforcement-1, Chennai and others, W.P. Nos. 30098 to 30104 & 32479 of 2016. 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 Section 64(4) of the Tamil Nadu 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 Section 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 Section 64(4) of the Act by the learned Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai-5 and under the impugned Order No. Q3/11740/2013, dated 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: Sl. No. Parameters (i) Dealers, whose total turnover (VAT = CST) is more than Rs.50 crores in 2013-2014 and who have not been subjected to audit so far since 1.1.2007. (ii) Dealers (Traders only), whose total output tax < 90% of total input tax in 2013-2014. (iii) Dealers, whose value of inter-state branch/ consignment transfer has increased more than 20% in 2013-2014 over previous year. (ii) Dealers (Traders only), whose total output tax < 90% of total input tax in 2013-2014. (iii) Dealers, whose value of inter-state branch/ consignment transfer has increased more than 20% in 2013-2014 over previous year. (iv) Dealers, who made import/interstate purchase/transfer of taxable goods in 2013-2014 and whose output tax < 90% of VAT payable on value of such inward goods. (v) Dealers, who effected total purchase of goods from R.C. cancelled Dealers and claimed ITC of more than Rs. 10,000 in 2013-2014 (vi) Dealers who had paid average net VAT of Rs.50,000 and above every month in 2013-2014 and such payment of tax remained within the range of + or - 5% of the average for atleast 9 months. It is further stated in the said Order that the procedure indicated in the Tamil Nadu VAT Audit Manual shall be strictly followed and ordinarily, all audits shall be completed within 15 days of commencement and VAT Audit proposals shall be sent to the territorial (Assessing Authority) not later than 30 days from the date of commencement of Audit. The Joint Commissioners of Enforcement Wing shall Authorise Officers for such audit not below the rank of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and the Officers shall comply within the provisions of Section 64(5)(a) & (b) of the TNVAT Act. The said Order, which was produced before the Court during the course of hearing indicates the manner, which will be discussed slightly hereafter. A list of 94 dealers is produced with said Order and at Serial 85 of that list gives the name of the Assessee M/s. Original Vel Sporting News. Learned Counsel for the Revenue, therefore, submitted that in terms of Section 64(4) of the Act, this is an appropriate Order passed by the learned Commissioner directing such Audit of the Respondent-Dealer and others and the learned Single Judge has erred in allowing the Writ Petition. 4. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Assessee, Mr. Krishna Srinivasan, vehemently submitted before us that the Order, dated 16.5.2014 purportedly passed by the Commissioner was not even produced before the learned Single Judge and therefore, the premise of the Order passed by the learned Single Judge that there was no order or authorisation for such Audit on the part of the Commissioner was perfectly justified and any such Audit Order now produced was also liable to be quashed including the consequential proceedings. He has further submitted that the learned Commissioner cannot delegate the power to order an Audit of the business of the Registered Dealers to any Lower Authority including the Joint Commissioner much less than the Deputy Commercial Taxes Officers and the Commissioner himself has to apply his mind to the various criteria’s enumerated under Section 64(4) of the Act, on the basis of which, the order for Audit of business of particular Dealer can be directed by the learned Commissioner. He submitted that no such exercise had been undertaken by the Commissioner in the present case and laying down the General Guideline, he could not have directed the audit of 94 Dealers as per the List annexed and produced before the Court today. He further submitted that there was no application of mind by the learned Commissioner for individual cases of the Dealers as to for what violation or fulfilling of the relevant rules or criteria, such Audit was required to be done. He further submitted that the learned Commissioner by the said Order has simply left it free for the Joint Commissioner to select as to which Dealer to be audited by which Deputy Commercial Taxes Officer whereas such a system was not envisaged in Section 64(4) of the Act. He further submitted that Section 64(4)-Order by the Commissioner is not an Administrative Order, but an Order having Civil consequences for the assessees. Therefore, it amounts to, a Quasi-Judicial proceedings, which requires compliance with the Principles of Natural Justice, viz., giving a Notice and opportunity of hearing to the assessee concerned. That procedure has not been adopted in the present case and therefore, the said Order, dated 16.5.2014 has no legs to stand upon. He submitted that in various such cases, different learned Single Judges of this Court had taken a view that in the absence of any such proper Order under Section 64(4) of the Act, no such Audit has been directed for Registered Dealers and he also sought to point out before this Court the Judgment rendered by one of the learned Single Judge in the case of W.P. No. 6031 of 2018, Empress Audio v. State by High Court, decided on 28.4.2018. Vide Paragraph 17 of the Judgment, he pointed out that the Department curiously produced one Annexure of such Dealers to be audited, which contained names of 288 Dealers and the name of that Petitioner - M/s. Empress Audio found place in Serial No. 168. He thus submitted that the alleged List of Dealers in the Annexure of the Order, dated 16.5.2014 now produced by the Revenue, which enlists only 94 Dealers before this Court has no iota of sanctity and without the individual cases of dealers being discussed by the Commissioner, about the condition of Section 64(4) of the Act. He, therefore, submitted that there is no merit in the Writ Appeal filed by the Revenue and the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the Writ Petition filed by the Assessee. 5. We have heard the learned Counsels. 6. Firstly, we express our serious reservation on the manner in which the Revenue Appellant has sought to produce the copy of the Order, dated 16.5.2014, only now and which was allegedly passed by the learned Commissioner of the Commercial Taxes, Mr. K. Rajaraman, when the matter was taken up by the Court today in pre-lunch session only, Page No. 1 of that Order contained only Paragraphs 1 to 3 and Second page of the said Order bearing the signature of the Commissioner, Mr. K. Rajaraman and his endorsement was not even available. The Annexure thereto comprising List of 94 dealers is not signed by anybody. When the Court expressed its anguish on the manner in which an incomplete document was produced before this Court, with due apology, the learned Counsel sought a pass over of the case and produced Page 2 of the said Order, which we have taken on record and have perused the Order accordingly and taken the same on record. Admittedly, the said Order was never produced before the learned Single Judge in its complete or even incomplete form. The manner in which, the Revenue Authority has dealt with the legal proceedings before this Court is deprecated and it appears that the Commercial Taxes Department takes the legal proceedings very casually. 7. Coming to the provisions of the Act itself, let us first quote Section 64, which deals with the "Maintenance of upto date, true and correct Accounts and Records by the Dealers", particularly sub-section (4), thereof with which we are concerned in the present case. 7. Coming to the provisions of the Act itself, let us first quote Section 64, which deals with the "Maintenance of upto date, true and correct Accounts and Records by the Dealers", particularly sub-section (4), thereof with which we are concerned in the present case. The said provision in its entirety is quoted below for ready reference: "64. Maintenance of upto date, true and correct accounts and records by dealers.--(1) Every person registered under this Act, every Dealer liable to get himself registered under this Act, and every other Dealer, who is required so to do by the Prescribed Authority by Notice served in the prescribed manner, shall keep and maintain an up-to-date, true and correct account showing full and complete particulars of his business and such other records as may be prescribed in any of the languages specified in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution or in English, showing such particulars as may be prescribed and different particulars as may be prescribed for different classes of Dealers. (2) (a) Every Registered Dealer shall keep at the place of business specified in the Certificate of Registration, Books of Account for the current year. If more than one place of business in the State is specified in the Certificate of Registration, the Books of Account relating to each place of business for the current year shall be kept in the place of business concerned. (b) Every Registered Dealer shall also ordinarily keep the Books of Account for the previous [six years] at such place or places as he may notify to the Registering Authority. If the Registered Dealer decides to change the place or places so notified, he shall, before effecting such change, notify the same to the Registering Authority. (3) Every Registered Dealer or person, who moves goods in pursuance of a sale or purchase or otherwise from one place to another shall send along with the goods moved a bill of sale or delivery note or such other documents, as may be prescribed. (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. (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 random selection basis by the Commissioner; or (e) where detailed scrutiny of the case is necessary in the opinion of the Commissioner." 8. The provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 64 empowers the Head of the Department, viz., the Commissioner to order for an Audit of the business of any Registered Dealer by an Officer not below the rank of the Deputy Commercial Taxes Officer, who is much Lower Authority in the hierarchy. The criteria of selection of Dealers of such Audit as enumerated in Clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (4) could be broadly construed to be "Defaulter Dealers", viz., those Dealers-- (i) who have not filed Returns; (ii) who have claimed exorbitant refund of tax; (iii) whose returns are not correct; (iv) any other criteria or on a random selection basis; (v) where details, are to be scrutinized in the opinion of the Commissioner. 9. It is clear that the said sub-section (4) does not empower the Commissioner to delegate the power to pass Order to any Lower Authority. Therefore, the application of mind by the Commissioner himself about the nature of the default by the particular Assessee concerned and therefore, there is a need to audit the Books of Accounts and other Revenue records of the business of that Assessee has to be recorded by the Commissioner himself. The words "any Registered Dealer" in sub-section (4) indicates a singular Dealer and not a group of Dealers. Therefore, such Orders under Section 64(4) cannot be passed for a group of Registered Dealer in one go. The recording the opinion about the default of the assessee cannot be construed to be an Administrative Function or Administrative Order passed by the Commissioner. Therefore, such Orders under Section 64(4) cannot be passed for a group of Registered Dealer in one go. The recording the opinion about the default of the assessee cannot be construed to be an Administrative Function or Administrative Order passed by the Commissioner. Therefore, such an Order under Section 64(4) of the Act can be nothing but a Quasi-Judicial Order, entailing Civil consequences for the Assessee or Dealer concerned. In view of this, the Orders to be passed under Section 64(4) of the Act have to meet the Principles of Natural Justice, viz., the compliance of the Principles of Audit alteram partem, giving of a Notice and opportunity of hearing to the Assessee concerned. The Assessee before the Commissioner can always contend that no such default as stipulated in Section 64(4), Clauses (a) to (e) is made out against him and if he places such a case before the learned Commissioner, it is incumbent upon of the Commissioner to apply mind and pass appropriate speaking and reasoned Order in this regard. Therefore, passing of an omnibus or general order to audit of business of Dealers like done in the present case, does not fit in the Scheme of Section 64(4) of the Act at all. Laying down of certain criteria, as has been done in the Order, dated 16.5.2014, is nothing but specifying certain limits of the criteria’s specified in Section 64(4) of the Act. Even in the provision itself, the Commissioner under Section 64(4) of the Act is not expected to issue a General Guideline or a Circular for guiding all the lower Authorities. Section 64(4) of the Act envisages an individual Order for Audit of the Books & Accounts and other Revenue records of the assessee for a particular period and it has to be individual Order showing the application of mind to the facts and circumstances of each case for each period. The power to delegate further is not provided under Section 64(4) of the Act. Therefore, the manner in which the impugned Order, dated 16.5.2014, has been passed by the learned Commissioner laying down certain limits or criterias quoted above leaving it free for the Joint Commissioner to Authorize Officers below to undertake such Audit is wholly untenable and unsustainable Order. 10. Therefore, the manner in which the impugned Order, dated 16.5.2014, has been passed by the learned Commissioner laying down certain limits or criterias quoted above leaving it free for the Joint Commissioner to Authorize Officers below to undertake such Audit is wholly untenable and unsustainable Order. 10. The Audit of the Books and Accounts of an Assessee is required not only under the provisions of Section 64(4) of the Act but such provisions, which may be applicable to the Assessee concerned, may be under the other relevant Statutes also like the provisions of the Companies Act, if an Assessee is a Limited Company, under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, vide Section 142(2-A) thereof as well. The Income-tax Act even contains a provision in Section 142(2-A) for direction of the Special Audit by the Authority concerned after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. Therefore, directing the audit of the accounts of the Company of the assessee is a serious matter and is not a simple administrative act. A reference hereto the Judgment of Karnataka High Court in Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, W.P. No. 1863 of 2017 connected with W.P. No. 25223 of 2016, dated 2.1.2018 is appropriate. 11. The Report or material collected through such proceedings is liable to be used as a material or evidence against the Assessee during the course of Assessment proceedings under the provisions of the Act. Paragraph 2 of the said Order itself envisages such Audit proposals to be sent to the Territorial Authorities. It is not supposed to be exercise in vacuum, but it is for collecting necessary material against the Assessee and as an anti-evasion measure. Therefore, while such a provision could have been incorporated in the Scheme of Act as have been done in Section 64(4) of the Act, the fact remains that the conditions and circumstances for applying the said provisions to the Assessees have to be strictly construed and it cannot be left at the free and sweet will of the concerned Authorities to order Audit of any business of the Registered Dealers just like that. 12. 12. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Order of the learned Commissioner under Section 64(4) of the Act is a Quasi-Judicial Order, requiring a prior Notice of hearing to the Assessee and passing of a reasoned Speaking Order in individual cases of registered Dealers for conducting audit by the specified Authority as directed by the Commissioner. The Order, dated 16.5.2014 does not meet these requirements of law at all. 13. We have already indicated above the manner, in which the Revenue was trying to justify the Audit by production of the Order, dated 16.5.2014 in piecemeal and truncated manner as indicated above. If not even the said Order was produced before the learned Single Judge and when it is produced later on before another learned Single Judge in another case, a List containing 288 Dealers was found with the said Order before the learned Single Judge. Today, when the said List is produced before us, it only contains 94 names of the Registered Dealers. Therefore, it is clear that such List is not prepared by the learned Commissioner with due application of mind by him to the individual cases of the Registered Dealers, as to which criteria of default, they do not satisfy and therefore, an Audit has to be undertaken by the Departmental Authority. Though the cost of such Audit is not directed to be borne by the Registered Dealers, sub-section (5) mandates that the Dealer is to afford or facilitate the production of Books of Accounts and documents during the course of such Audit including verification of documents. Such an Order without complying with the Principles of Natural Justice and without providing an opportunity of hearing to the Dealer deserves to be quashed only on the ground of non-compliance with the Principles of Natural Justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a large number of cases has even held that unless the provisions of the Natural Justice are specifically excluded by the Statutory provisions, they can be read into such provisions in the interest of justice. The provisions in Section 64(4) of the Act do not specify anything about the Notice for hearing to the Registered Dealers, but the mere absence of such a provision does not prevent this Court from directing such a requirement to be complied with by the Department, viz., Commissioner before directing such Audit under Section 64(4) of the Act. The provisions in Section 64(4) of the Act do not specify anything about the Notice for hearing to the Registered Dealers, but the mere absence of such a provision does not prevent this Court from directing such a requirement to be complied with by the Department, viz., Commissioner before directing such Audit under Section 64(4) of the Act. A reference for this proposition of law can be made to Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K. Ratna and others, 1987 (1) LLN 4 (SC) : 1986 (4) SCC 537 . 14. In view of the aforesaid, the present Writ Appeal filed by the Revenue is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. The Order, dated 16.5.2014 passed by the learned Commissioner is quashed and set aside. There shall be no order as to Costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.