GST Audit Support — Mount-Poonamallee Road Porur & Porur

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 (4) of Section 65 prescribes that the audit shall be completed within three months from the date of commencement of the audit. The proviso permits the Commissioner, where satisfied that the audit cannot be completed within three months for reasons to be recorded in writing, to extend the period by a further period not exceeding six months. The expression date of commencement is defined in the Explanation to mean the date on which the records and other 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.

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.

Common audit findings

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.

Reverse-charge under Sections 9(3) and 9(4) — self-invoice gaps

The second-most-common audit finding is missed reverse-charge — supplies where the recipient is liable to pay tax under Section 9(3) (notified categories — GTA without forward-charge election, legal services, sponsorship, services by directors, etc.) or Section 9(4) (supplies from unregistered to registered persons in notified categories for real-estate developers under Notification 07/2019-CT(R) read with 03/2019-CT(R)). Section 31(3)(f) requires the recipient to issue a self-invoice; many registered persons miss this step. The audit-team computes the missed output liability under reverse-charge, the corresponding ITC eligibility (subject to time-limit under Section 16(4)), and the interest under Section 50. Voluntary disclosure via DRC-03 is the standard close-out.

Pre-audit preparation

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.

Document marshalling on receipt of ADT-01

Upon receipt of Form ADT-01, the registered person's first task in the fifteen-day window is structured document marshalling. The recommended sequence is: (i) compile the full year's GSTR-1, GSTR-3B, GSTR-2A / 2B downloads; (ii) compile GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C with the underlying reconciliation working papers; (iii) compile sales register, purchase register and stock register from the accounting system; (iv) compile bank statements and cash-book extracts; (v) compile e-way bill summaries; (vi) compile reverse-charge self-invoice register under Section 31(3)(f); (vii) compile Rule 42 / 43 ITC apportionment working papers; (viii) compile statutory audit and tax audit reports for the corresponding financial year. This structured marshalling enables the audit team to verify systematically and shortens the audit cycle materially.

Representation rights under Section 75

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.

Reasoned order requirement under Section 75(6)

Section 75(6) provides that the proper officer, in his order, shall set out the relevant facts and the basis of his decision. The reasoned-order requirement is a substantive procedural right that traces to the Kranti Associates v Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) Supreme Court principle on natural-justice-derived reasoned orders. Pradeep Goyal v UoI (Supreme Court on DIN — document identification number for all CBIC communications) supplements this by requiring procedural identifiability of the order. The registered person facing an order that does not engage with the response, does not cite the relevant provisions, or merely reproduces the SCN allegations, has strong grounds for either Section 107 first-appeal challenge or Article 226 writ challenge.

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.

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

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

Table 8D adverse finding of ₹47 lakh cured before ADT-02 by re-running the 2B match

Other Services in Mount-Poonamallee Road Porur, Chennai

What Mount-Poonamallee Road Porur Clients Say