GST Audit Support in 100ft Road Koyambedu, Chennai

Sub-section (1) of Section 65 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act empowers the Commissioner, or any officer authorised by him through a general or specific order, to undertake audit of any registered person for such period, frequency and manner as may be prescribed. Sub-section (2) provides that the audit may be conducted either at the place of business of the registered person or at the office of the proper officer. It is to be noted that this provision is the substantive source of departmental audit jurisdiction and is read with Rule 101 for procedural mechanics.

Sub-section (1) of Section 66 provides that if at any stage of scrutiny, inquiry, investigation or any other proceedings, the officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner, having regard to the nature and complexity of the case and the interest of revenue, is of the opinion that the value has not been correctly declared or the credit availed is not within the normal limits, he may, with prior approval of the Commissioner, direct the registered person to get the records including books of account examined and audited by a chartered accountant or a cost accountant nominated by the Commissioner.

Sub-rule (1) of Rule 101 provides that the period of audit shall be a financial year or part thereof or multiples thereof. Sub-rule (2) prescribes Form GST ADT-01 for the audit notice. Sub-rule (4) directs the proper officer, on conclusion of audit, to record the audit observations in his audit notes and to inform the registered person of the discrepancies, who may file his reply. Sub-rule (5) prescribes Form GST ADT-02 for communication of audit findings.

Sub-section (5) of Section 65 obliges the registered person to afford the necessary facility to verify the books of account or other documents as may be required, and to furnish such information as may be required and render assistance for timely completion of the audit. It is to be noted that non-cooperation under this sub-section can lead the proper officer to invoke best-judgment assessment under Section 62 or escalate to special audit under Section 66.

Sub-section (6) of Section 65 requires the proper officer, on conclusion of audit, to inform the registered person within thirty days of the findings, the registered person's rights and obligations, and the reasons for such findings. The communication is issued in Form GST ADT-02. It is to be noted that the thirty-day window is mandatory and starts on the date of conclusion of audit, not the date of the audit report.

Sub-section (3) of Section 65 provides that the registered person shall be informed by way of a notice not less than fifteen working days prior to the conduct of audit. The notice is issued in Form GST ADT-01 as prescribed under Rule 101(2). It is to be noted that the fifteen-working-day window is a substantive procedural safeguard; commencement of audit proceedings without compliance with this timeline is a jurisdictional infirmity that may be agitated under Article 226.

What is a GST audit and where does it sit in the compliance architecture

Statutory framework under Chapter XIII of the CGST Act

The audit framework under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 is contained in Chapter XIII, comprising Sections 65, 66 and 71. Section 65 provides for departmental audit, Section 66 for special audit by a Chartered Accountant or Cost Accountant nominated by the Commissioner, and Section 71 for access to business premises by an authorised officer. The Empowered Committee 2009 First Discussion Paper had envisaged audit as the principal verification layer in a self-assessment regime, replacing the pre-GST pattern of routine assessment under the VAT/CST framework. The architecture is risk-based: not every registered person is audited; selection is driven by Section 65(2) read with internal CBIC risk-management directions which factor in turnover scale, sectoral risk profile, prior compliance history and reconciliation gaps surfaced in GSTR-9C self-certification. The audit-process closure under Section 65(7) feeds either into a no-objection certificate, a voluntary DRC-03 payment, or an SCN under Section 73 or Section 74 depending on whether tax has been short-paid, short-collected or wrongly availed as ITC.

Audit versus assessment versus inspection

Audit under Section 65 or 66 is conceptually distinct from assessment under Sections 61 (scrutiny of returns) and 62 (best-judgement assessment of non-filers) and from inspection / search / seizure under Section 67. Scrutiny under Section 61 is a desk-review of returns by the proper officer who issues ASMT-10 on discrepancies; the registered person responds in ASMT-11; closure or escalation follows. Audit is broader — Section 65(5) permits examination of the books, returns, statements, declarations and other documents to verify correctness of turnover declared, taxes paid, refund claimed and ITC availed, plus assessment of compliance with the Act. Inspection under Section 67 is targeted enforcement upon reason-to-believe of tax evasion and is invasive — premises access, seizure of records and goods. The OECD Forum on Tax Administration's compliance-pyramid model recommends graduated escalation from desk review to field audit to inspection, and the Indian framework broadly mirrors that design.

Self-certification under GSTR-9C and its audit interplay

Until Finance Act 2021 amendments, Section 35(5) had required certification of GSTR-9C by a Chartered Accountant or Cost Accountant for registered persons whose aggregate turnover exceeded the prescribed threshold. The Finance Act 2021 substituted Section 35(5) and amended Section 44, shifting GSTR-9C to a self-certified reconciliation statement filed by the registered person without third-party attestation, effective FY 2020-21 onwards (Notification 29/2021-CT). The reconciliation in GSTR-9C between audited financial statements and GSTR-9 annual return is now an internal-control disclosure; it does not substitute for departmental audit under Section 65. Audit teams treat GSTR-9C self-certified reconciliations as primary working papers — Table 5 (turnover reconciliation), Table 9 (tax payable reconciliation) and Table 12-14 (ITC reconciliation) become the starting points of Section 65 audit interrogation.

ADT-03 cost recovery

Cost-recovery in practice — pattern from Tamil Nadu Commissionerates

In practice, ADT-03 cost-recovery determinations issued by Tamil Nadu Commissionerates have ranged from modest amounts (₹50,000-₹2 lakh for limited-scope special audits) to substantial amounts (₹10 lakh and above for multi-year complex audits involving multiple GSTINs). The pattern correlates with the audit-scope — broad valuation or ITC-eligibility audits at large multi-State entities typically yield higher cost-recovery quantums. Registered persons under Section 66 nomination are well-advised to engage with the CA/CMA on a documented scope-limitation memorandum to control the quantum; reasonableness of the determination is reviewable in writ jurisdiction though the threshold for interference is high.

Statutory basis under Section 66(4) and Rule 102

Form GST ADT-03 is the cost-recovery determination notice under Rule 102 of the CGST Rules read with Section 66(4) of the CGST Act. Section 66(4) provides that the expenses of the examination and audit of records under Section 66, including remuneration payable to the Chartered Accountant or Cost Accountant nominated by the Commissioner, shall be determined and paid by the Commissioner; ADT-03 is the form through which this determination is communicated to the registered person, and the amount becomes payable as a Government dues recovery under Section 79. The Rule 102 framework was added to provide procedural clarity on the cost-recovery mechanism; comparative pre-GST excise (Section 14A Central Excise Act, since omitted) and service tax (Section 72A Finance Act 1994) had similar cost-recovery features.

Determination of remuneration and challenges

The Commissioner determines the remuneration of the nominated Chartered Accountant or Cost Accountant under Section 66(4) based on rates broadly aligned with the ICAI and ICMAI minimum recommended scales for special-audit work. The registered person typically has no direct say in either the selection of the CA/CMA or the remuneration determination — both are administrative decisions of the Commissioner. Challenges to ADT-03 cost-recovery are rare in practice and usually focus on the underlying Section 66 nomination itself rather than the quantum. Where the Section 66 nomination was procedurally infirm (no Commissioner approval, no opportunity of being heard, no recorded reasons), the consequential ADT-03 cost-recovery similarly becomes vulnerable in writ proceedings. The OECD Forum on Tax Administration documents this cost-recovery pattern as common across jurisdictions that use specialist-audit tiers.

Records retention under Section 35

Consequences of failure to maintain records

Failure to maintain accounts and records as prescribed under Section 35 read with Rule 56 attracts consequences under multiple provisions. Section 35(6) empowers the proper officer to determine the tax payable on the goods or services or both not accounted for as if such goods or services or both had been supplied by such person, and the provisions of Sections 73 or 74 shall apply for determination of such tax. Section 122 provides for penalty for various offences including failure to maintain records — up to ₹10,000 or the amount of tax evaded, whichever is higher. The audit team's working assumption in cases of inadequate records is that the burden shifts to the registered person to demonstrate the correctness of declared turnover and ITC; this evidentiary shift is the most material consequence in practice.

Comparative framework — Income Tax Act 44AA and Companies Act records

The GST retention framework operates alongside the Income Tax Act Section 44AA requirement to maintain books of account for specified professions and businesses (with retention under Rule 6F for six years), and the Companies Act 2013 Section 128 requirement for books of account preservation for at least eight years preceding the current year. The longest applicable horizon governs — for a company carrying on a taxable supply business, the effective records-retention period is the Companies Act eight-year horizon. The OECD International VAT/GST Guidelines recommend a minimum retention of five years tied to the audit-period limitation, which the Indian GST framework comfortably exceeds. Coordinated retention policies across GST, income tax and Companies Act dimensions are the typical compliance design at well-run enterprises.

Statutory framework and retention horizon

Section 35(1) of the CGST Act requires every registered person to keep and maintain, at his principal place of business and at every additional place of business mentioned in the certificate of registration, a true and correct account of production or manufacture of goods, inward and outward supply of goods or services or both, stock of goods, input tax credit availed, output tax payable and paid, and such other particulars as may be prescribed. Section 36 mandates that every registered person required to keep books and accounts under Section 35 shall retain them until the expiry of seventy-two months from the due date of furnishing the annual return for the year pertaining to such accounts. The seventy-two-month (six-year) retention horizon aligns with the Section 73 normal-period limitation of three years from the due date of the annual return, and the Section 74 extended-period limitation of five years, with a safety margin.

Rule 56 stock records

Reconstruction of stock records during audit

Where stock records under Rule 56(2) are incomplete or absent — a common scenario in SME manufacturing and trading — reconstruction during the ADT-01 fifteen-day window is the standard response. The reconstruction sources include purchase invoices and GSTR-2A entries (for inward stock), GSTR-1 outward supplies (for sales), e-way bill data (for stock movements), bank statements (for cash purchases or sales not invoiced through GST channels), and stock-take working papers from the statutory audit under the Companies Act or Section 44AB income tax audit. Reconstruction must be contemporaneous with the original transaction dates; backdated reconstruction is treated as fabrication by the audit team. The Tapas Dutta v UoI line of authority on retrospective records is occasionally invoked, but registered persons should not rely on it as a safe harbour.

Stock-difference treatment under Section 35(6) and Section 17(5)(h)

Where audit identifies stock differences — physical stock at audit visit differing from book stock — two provisions operate. Section 35(6) deems the unaccounted goods to have been supplied and attracts tax under Sections 73 / 74. Section 17(5)(h) blocks ITC on goods lost, stolen, destroyed, written off, or disposed of by way of gift or free sample, requiring reversal of the ITC originally claimed. The audit team typically computes both legs — output tax on the deemed supply, and ITC reversal on the inward leg — leading to a double-impact. Voluntary disclosure of stock-differences with documented reasons (e.g. shrinkage, wastage, theft with FIR copy) limits the exposure; the audit team's discretion under Section 75 allows mitigation where reasons are substantiated.

Sectoral application of Rule 56(18) — jewellery, precious metals

Rule 56(18) applies to a narrow but high-revenue-risk band of trades — precious metals, precious stones, jewellery — where stock-record granularity is essential because of the high unit-value and pilferage-risk profile. The daily quantity-wise register must capture purity (in carats for gold), weight (in grams or pennyweights), make-charges component, hallmarking certificate references (BIS hallmark unique identification), and customer-wise sale-bill traces. Family-run jewellery businesses in particular often default to consolidated weekly or monthly stock summaries; this gap is the most common audit finding in jewellery-sector Section 65 audits in Tamil Nadu. Coordinated compliance with TCS under Section 206C(1F) at 1% on sales above ₹2 lakh adds an income-tax overlay to the stock-records architecture.

Section 65 audit on Section 15(3) discount treatment defended for a {{area_name}} consumer durables seller

Rule 56(1) ledger gap of seven months — reconstructed from bank and e-invoice in eight days

Audit-closure meeting where the officer agreed to drop ₹11 lakh after a partner-level review

Diya Agencies principle extended at Section 65 audit for a {{area_name}} hardware trader

Other Services in 100ft Road Koyambedu, Chennai

What 100ft Road Koyambedu Clients Say