GST Audit Support — Karthik Nagar Nerkundram & Nerkundram

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 (3) of Section 66 directs the nominee auditor to submit the report to the Assistant Commissioner within ninety days, which may be extended by a further ninety days on application by the registered person or the nominee auditor for material and sufficient reasons. It is to be noted that the ceiling on combined period under this provision is one hundred and eighty days.

Sub-section (7) of Section 65 provides that where the audit results in detection of tax not paid or short paid, erroneously refunded, or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised, the proper officer may initiate action under Section 73 or Section 74. It is to be noted that this sub-section is the statutory bridge between the audit conclusion and adjudication proceedings.

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.

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.

Audit-to-DRC-01 escalation

Appellate framework — Section 107 first appeal and beyond

Where the Section 73 or 74 adjudication order under DRC-07 is adverse, the registered person's first appeal lies under Section 107 of the CGST Act before the Joint or Additional Commissioner (Appeals) within three months from the date of communication of the order, extendable by one month for sufficient cause. Pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax amount under Section 107(6) is the gateway requirement. Second appeal lies under Section 112 before the GST Appellate Tribunal (now operational with Principal Bench at New Delhi and State / Area Benches notified); the Section 112 pre-deposit is an additional 20% (cumulative 30%). Beyond the Tribunal, appeal lies to the High Court under Section 117 on questions of law, and to the Supreme Court under Section 118. Writ remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Madras High Court is available for jurisdictional infirmities at any stage.

Section 73 versus Section 74 framing post-audit

Where audit findings are not addressed through voluntary DRC-03 payment, the proper officer issues a Show Cause Notice — DRC-01 under Section 73(1) for cases not involving fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression, and under Section 74(1) for cases involving any of those elements. The framing choice has material consequences. Section 73 attracts penalty of 10% of tax or ₹10,000 whichever is higher (Section 73(9)), with no penalty if voluntary payment is made within thirty days of SCN under Section 73(8). Section 74 attracts penalty of 100% of tax (Section 74(9)), with reduced penalty of 25% if voluntary payment is made within thirty days of SCN under Section 74(8) and 50% within thirty days of order. The extended-period limitation of five years (versus three years under Section 73) is the other material difference.

Defending Section 74 fraud framing

Where the audit-team recommends Section 74 framing, the registered person's defence focuses on the four elements — fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade tax. The Supreme Court's pre-GST jurisprudence on similar language in Central Excise (Pushpam Pharmaceuticals v CCE) and Service Tax (CCE v Mehta and Co) emphasised that mere non-payment or non-disclosure does not amount to suppression with intent; positive indicators of intent are needed. Bona-fide classification errors, computational mistakes, and reasonable interpretation differences are not suppression. Where the SCN frames the case under Section 74, the response should systematically address each of the four elements and rely on the documentary trail showing bona-fide compliance attempts. Pradeep Goyal (DIN requirement) and Kranti Associates (reasoned order) provide procedural safeguards.

Common audit findings

Classification and rate-of-tax disputes

The third-recurrent audit finding is classification and rate-of-tax. The GST rate structure across the rate notifications (Notification 01/2017-CT(R) and amendments, Notification 11/2017-CT(R) for services) contains thousands of HSN-and-SAC line items with rates from nil to 28%; classification borderlines are inherent. Audit-team challenges typically focus on: dual-rate items (5%/12%/18% pharmaceutical formulations, footwear, restaurants), composite versus mixed supplies under Section 8 (where the principal-supply classification determines the rate), and works-contract versus pure services classification. The Section 97 Advance Ruling mechanism offers a forward-looking certainty path; for historical classifications, the response is to cite the CBIC circulars (e.g. Circular 164/20/2021-GST on services classification clarifications) and contemporaneous trade-practice evidence.

Place-of-supply errors and IGST versus CGST/SGST

Place-of-supply errors are the fourth common finding — typically where the registered person charged CGST/SGST (intra-State) when the place of supply under Sections 10 to 13 IGST Act was inter-State (requiring IGST), or vice versa. Section 77 of the CGST Act provides a corrective mechanism — where tax was paid under one head but is actually payable under another, the wrongly-paid tax can be claimed as refund and the correctly-payable tax should be paid; the registered person is not penalised, only interest under Section 50 may apply. Audit teams sometimes overlook Section 77 and compute full short-payment additions; citing Section 77 with documented evidence of the corresponding refund-eligible head closes the issue at audit stage.

ITC mismatch between GSTR-2A / 2B and GSTR-3B

The single most common Section 65 audit finding is ITC mismatch — ITC claimed in GSTR-3B Table 4(A) exceeding ITC available in GSTR-2A or GSTR-2B for the corresponding tax period. The post-2019 regulatory tightening — Rule 36(4) initially capping un-uploaded ITC at 20%, then 10%, then 5% (Notification 75/2019-CT, 49/2019-CT, 94/2020-CT trajectory), then Section 16(2)(aa) mandating GSTR-2B as the eligibility baseline (Notification 39/2021-CT effective 1 January 2022) — has progressively tightened the mismatch tolerance to nil. Audit findings on FY 2020-21 onwards typically computes the mismatch quarter-wise; the registered person's defence rests on vendor-wise reconciliation, vendor follow-up correspondence, and the Suncraft Energy bona-fide-buyer principle where applicable.

Pre-audit preparation

Internal reconciliation walkthrough

Before the audit-team's arrival, the registered person should conduct an internal reconciliation walkthrough — replicating the audit-team's likely interrogation map. The walkthrough should cover: GSTR-1 outward supply versus books turnover; GSTR-3B Table 3.1 versus GSTR-1 invoice-summary; GSTR-3B Table 4(A) ITC claimed versus GSTR-2A / 2B vendor uploads; GSTR-9 Tables 4 to 8 versus GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B aggregates; GSTR-9C Tables 5, 7, 9, 12 to 14 versus audited financial statements. Any variance identified at the walkthrough is an opportunity for voluntary DRC-03 payment before the audit-team formalises it; voluntary disclosure during the walkthrough phase typically attracts no penalty under Section 73(5) read with Section 73(6).

Engagement of representation counsel

For audits of even moderate complexity, engagement of a representation counsel — a Chartered Accountant with GST practice depth, or a tax advocate for procedural-rights-heavy cases — is the standard professional practice. The counsel's role is to mediate communication with the audit team, draft formal responses to audit observations, attend personal hearings, and prepare voluntary-disclosure computations where applicable. The Section 116 representation framework under the CGST Act permits authorised representatives — relatives, employees, advocates, Chartered Accountants, Cost Accountants, and Company Secretaries — to appear before the proper officer. The OECD Forum on Tax Administration documents counsel-engagement as a standard taxpayer-rights practice across mature tax jurisdictions.

Mock audit by independent reviewer

For high-stake audits (multi-year audits, Section 66 special audit nominations, audits of multi-State enterprises), a mock audit by an independent reviewer — typically a former tax-department officer or a senior Chartered Accountant with audit-defence experience — is a useful preparation step. The mock auditor replicates the audit-team's risk-engine-driven interrogation, identifies weak documentary positions, and recommends remedial steps. The cost of mock audits is justified where the potential audit exposure (tax plus interest plus penalty) materially exceeds the mock-audit fee. Comparative income-tax practice has long used mock-audits for high-stake Section 143(3) scrutiny assessments and Section 142(2A) special audits; the GST extension of this practice is recent but growing.

Section 65 audit on credit-note disclosure defended for a {{area_name}} consumer electronics distributor

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

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

Section 73 SCN downgrade from Section 74 secured at audit close for a {{area_name}} jeweller

Other Services in Karthik Nagar Nerkundram, Chennai

What Karthik Nagar Nerkundram Clients Say