GST Audit Support in KK Nagar Virugambakkam Road, 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 (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 (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 (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.

Representation rights under Section 75

Bound-by-appellate-decisions principle under Section 75(11)

Section 75(11) provides that an issue on which the appellate authority or Appellate Tribunal or High Court has given its decision which is prejudicial to the interest of revenue in some other proceedings, and an appeal to the appellate authority or Appellate Tribunal or High Court or Supreme Court against such decision is pending, the period of stay shall be excluded in computing the limitation period. The provision permits the revenue to preserve its position pending appeal; the corresponding taxpayer protection is the principle that the proper officer is bound by appellate decisions on the same issue unless distinguished. Where the registered person can cite a binding precedent on the same issue from the Madras High Court or AAR Tamil Nadu, the proper officer is obliged to apply it.

Opportunity of being heard under Section 75(4)

Section 75(4) of the CGST Act provides that an opportunity of being heard shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. The opportunity is a substantive procedural right derived from the principles of natural justice and the constitutional audi alteram partem principle. The GKN Driveshafts (India) v ITO Supreme Court principle on the pre-decisional opportunity is applied in the GST context with full force. The proper officer's failure to grant the opportunity, or grant in a perfunctory manner, vitiates the order and provides grounds for writ relief under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Madras High Court.

Multiple adjournments and Section 75(5)

Section 75(5) provides that the proper officer shall, if sufficient cause is shown by the person chargeable with tax, grant time to that person and adjourn the hearing for reasons to be recorded in writing; provided that no such adjournment shall be granted for more than three times to a person during the proceedings. The three-adjournment cap is a calibration between procedural fairness and proceeding-efficiency. In practice, registered persons facing complex audit findings should plan their adjournment requests strategically — use the first adjournment to gather documents, the second for representation-counsel engagement, and reserve the third for final consolidation. Beyond three adjournments, the proper officer is empowered to proceed ex-parte under Section 75(5) and pass the order on best-judgement basis.

Post-audit options

Writ remedy before the Madras High Court

Where the ADT-02 findings, the SCN under Section 73/74, or the DRC-07 adjudication order suffers from jurisdictional infirmity — absence of Commissioner approval for Section 66 special audit, breach of Section 65(4) audit-completion timeline, denial of Section 75(4) opportunity of hearing, absence of Section 75(6) reasoned order, absence of DIN under Pradeep Goyal, breach of natural justice under audi alteram partem — the registered person can file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Madras High Court. The Aap and Co v UoI (Gujarat HC) and Asahi India Glass v UoI (P&H HC) line of authority offers guidance on writ entertainability in tax matters. The writ remedy is extraordinary and reserved for jurisdictional questions, not for merit-based challenges which belong in the statutory appellate hierarchy.

Settlement under Section 84 and amnesty schemes

Section 84 of the CGST Act provides for the continuance and validation of certain recovery proceedings; it does not provide a formal settlement scheme akin to the income-tax Settlement Commission framework which existed pre Finance Act 2021. However, the GST Council has periodically recommended amnesty schemes for specific compliance categories — Notification 03/2023-CT and the surrounding family of notifications on late-fee waiver, the GSTR-9 late-fee amnesty, the registration-revocation amnesty under Notification 03/2023-CT, and the periodic Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme equivalent for legacy excise / service tax cases. The registered person facing an adverse audit closure should monitor GST Council recommendations (47th Chandigarh, 50th, 53rd and subsequent meetings) for amnesty windows that may offer settlement at reduced penalty quantum. The OECD Forum on Tax Administration recognises amnesty-and-voluntary-disclosure programmes as compliance-architecture tools.

Voluntary DRC-03 closure

The simplest post-audit option, where the registered person broadly accepts the ADT-02 findings, is voluntary closure through DRC-03 payment under Section 73(5). DRC-03 is filed online through the GST portal; the registered person specifies the tax, interest and (where applicable) penalty quantum and the period to which the payment relates. Section 73(6) bars subsequent SCN on the amount paid. The Form DRC-04 acknowledgement is the conclusive evidence of voluntary closure. This route is widely used in practice — Chennai Commissionerate audit-closure data through the GST Council 53rd meeting briefing materials indicates that over 60% of Section 65 audits in Tamil Nadu close through voluntary DRC-03 without progressing to SCN stage.

Section 65 departmental audit framework

Audit period and frequency under Section 65(2)

Section 65(2) provides that the audit shall be conducted at the place of business of the registered person or in the office of the proper officer. The period covered is generally one financial year; multi-year audits are permissible where risk parameters warrant. Rule 101(1) limits the audit to a financial year unless the Commissioner specifically directs otherwise. The frequency of audit selection is risk-driven — the CBIC's Audit Manual (2019, periodically updated) directs Commissionerates to combine GSTN risk-engine outputs with sectoral profiles and prior-audit findings. Persons whose aggregate turnover crosses prescribed risk thresholds, or who have triggered specific red flags (large refund claims, sharp ITC growth versus output growth, GSTR-2A versus GSTR-3B mismatches), are prioritised. The GST Council 47th Chandigarh meeting (June 2022) had recommended a more nuanced risk-based selection to reduce small-taxpayer compliance burden.

Audit completion timeline under Section 65(4)

Section 65(4) requires that the audit under Section 65 shall be completed within three months from the date of commencement of audit. The Commissioner is empowered to extend this period by a further six months for reasons recorded in writing; the maximum total audit-cycle is therefore nine months from commencement. 'Commencement of audit' is defined in the Explanation to Section 65(4) as the date on which records and documents called for by the tax authorities are made available by the registered person, or the actual institution of audit at the place of business, whichever is later. This definition is significant for the registered person — timely document submission tightens the audit timeline and prevents prolonged uncertainty; the OECD Forum on Tax Administration best-practice benchmarks similarly emphasise audit-cycle time as a taxpayer-rights consideration.

Powers of the audit team under Section 65(5) and Section 65(6)

Section 65(5) empowers the audit team to verify the documents, ascertain the correctness of turnover declared, exemptions and deductions claimed, rate of tax applied, ITC availed and utilised, refund claimed, and other relevant compliance matters. The team can examine any of these dimensions and require any explanation. Section 65(6) imposes a corresponding obligation on the registered person to afford the necessary facility to verify the books of account, statements and other documents called for, and to furnish information and render assistance for the timely completion of the audit. Reasonable cooperation is the registered person's first-line defence — obstruction or non-cooperation can trigger Section 71 access provisions and escalate the matter into Section 67 inspection territory.

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

Section 107 first appeal filed against an adverse ADT-02 demand for a {{area_name}} restaurant chain

Section 17(2) common-credit reversal under Rule 42 defended at audit for a {{area_name}} mixed-supply hospital

Section 65 audit defended on stock variance for a {{area_name}} FMCG distributor

Other Services in KK Nagar Virugambakkam Road, Chennai

What KK Nagar Virugambakkam Road Clients Say