GST Audit Support in St Thomas Mount, 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.

Section 74 governs the determination of tax not paid, short paid, erroneously refunded, or input tax credit wrongly availed by reason of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax. The limitation is extended to five years from the due date of the annual return for the relevant financial year. Penalty equal to the tax demanded is leviable. It is to be noted that the higher penalty regime under this provision requires the proper officer to specifically allege and establish one of the three jurisdictional triggers.

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-02 audit report

Disagreement options post ADT-02

Where the registered person disagrees with one or more ADT-02 findings, the response options are: (a) file a Section 75 representation seeking re-consideration before the SCN stage; (b) await the SCN under Section 73 or 74 and contest at that stage; (c) where the audit findings are perceived as jurisdictionally infirm, file a writ petition before the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ remedy is typically reserved for jurisdictional infirmities — absence of Commissioner approval under Section 66, breach of the Section 65(4) timeline, denial of Section 75 opportunity of hearing — rather than for merit-based challenges. The Aap and Co v UoI (Gujarat HC) and Asahi India Glass v UoI (P&H HC) lines of authority offer guidance on writ-jurisdictional questions in audit and assessment matters.

Form, statutory basis and contents

Form GST ADT-02 is the audit-closure report prescribed under Rule 101(5) of the CGST Rules and Section 65(7) of the CGST Act. Upon completion of the audit, the proper officer is required to issue ADT-02 within thirty days informing the registered person of the findings, the rights and obligations, and the reasons for such findings. ADT-02 captures the period audited, the audit observations under each verification head (turnover, ITC, refund, classification, rate, valuation), the proper officer's conclusion on each observation, the tax / interest / penalty quantum where applicable, and the rights of the registered person to dispute or accept the findings. The form is the formal closure of the audit cycle and the trigger for the next-stage decision — voluntary DRC-03 payment, SCN under Section 73 or 74, or no-action closure.

Reading the audit-observations and proper-officer reasoning

ADT-02 audit observations are structured around the verification heads — turnover under Section 9 read with Section 7, taxable value under Section 15, rate of tax under the rate notifications, ITC under Sections 16 to 21, refund under Sections 54 and 55, and miscellaneous compliance. Each observation typically includes the audit team's working, the discrepancy quantum, the section / rule under which the proposed addition is framed, and the proper officer's reasoning. The Kranti Associates v Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) Supreme Court principle on reasoned orders applies — the proper officer's reasoning must engage with the registered person's explanations and cannot be a mechanical reproduction of audit-team working. Where reasoning is absent or perfunctory, the registered person has stronger grounds in subsequent Section 73 / 74 proceedings or in a writ petition before the Madras High Court under Article 226.

ADT-03 cost recovery

Payment timeline and Section 79 recovery framework

Once ADT-03 is served, the cost-recovery amount becomes payable within the timeline specified in the form (typically thirty days). Non-payment triggers Section 79 of the CGST Act — the Government dues recovery framework — which empowers the proper officer to recover the amount through modes including deduction from any amount due to the registered person, sale of any movable or immovable property, attachment of bank accounts under Section 83 provisional attachment, and recovery as land revenue arrears. The registered person can apply for instalment-payment under Section 80 read with Rule 158 where genuine financial hardship exists; the Commissioner has discretion to allow up to twenty-four monthly instalments subject to interest under Section 50.

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.

Records retention under Section 35

Specific records prescribed under Rules 56 to 58

Rule 56 of the CGST Rules elaborates the records to be maintained under Section 35 — accounts of goods or services received and supplied, stock of goods (with opening balance, receipt, supply, goods lost stolen destroyed written off or disposed of by way of gift or free sample, balance), particulars of ITC availed, output tax payable and paid, names and complete addresses of suppliers and customers, complete addresses of premises where goods are stored including goods stored during transit, monthly production accounts (for manufacturers) showing quantitative details of raw materials and goods produced, and accounts of advances received and paid. Rule 57 provides for maintenance through electronic means with prescribed safeguards. Rule 58 covers transporter, owner and operator of warehouse records. The records-architecture is granular and audit teams systematically map registered-person records against the Rule 56 schema during Section 65 audits.

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.

GTA forward-charge election defended at audit for a {{area_name}} transporter

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

Other Services in St Thomas Mount, Chennai

What St Thomas Mount Clients Say