Audit under 65 for multiple years and three scn sent for one FAR

[rajat solanki]

we had audit under 65 and audit authorities issued audit discrepancy then issued far without considering the points. The Taxpayer submitted the reply vide email dated 02.01.2025 to Audit Enquiry. However, the taxpayer failed to provide satisfactory explanation with proper documentation.

then they issued 3 notices under 74 form 2018-2023 and sent them just via email first they had issued an SCN with supdt power and reply was submitted physically in the same we responded that DRC-01 or DRC-01A was not given and in the meantime we recd 2 more notices of multiple years of ac power then upon finding reply they uploaded 2 notice online and served DRC-01 but not DRC-01A and third notice is not yet uploaded online

we had asked for clubbing of all notice as circular 31 point 8 but they have not considered the same all SCN had various points like GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, import, post sale discount, RCM on nr, merchant export, 180 days, SEZ sale, 17(5), sale of jewellery and many point have are wrong can be treated in 73 and all Showing suppression stating if audit had not been done these would have not come up thus suppressed but the same were provided by us before audit starting itself and no fraud was alleged and no mens rea but still 74 issued what can we do to show its illegality

we had objected 74 is illegal and multiple years SCN cannot be issued and each year has to given separately with its case law to save from 160(2)

what can be done at this juncture when order is not issued or just wait for appeal and should one approach high court directly what else should done other than this ?

what would happen if shifted to 73 under appeal and Circular 185 only 21-22 and 22-23 were within time of 73

will these has to be issued again and others be dropped?

what precaution should one maintain?

AI Summary

Audit under Section 65 triggers Section 74 allegations of suppression; consider Section 73 and CBIC Circular No.185/2022 guidance Audit under Section 65 led to audit objections and multiple show-cause notices for various years framed under Section 74 alleging suppression; the taxpayer replied but lacked supporting documentation and contends procedural defects (DRC-01A not served, notices sent by email, request to club years ignored). Forum responses stress that Section 74 requires clear evidence of fraud and that CBIC Circular No.185/2022 and case law favor invocation of Section 73 (regular demand, three-year limitation, lower penalty) absent wilful suppression. Recommended steps: promptly reply with records, raise procedural defects and misclassification of sections in adjudication, exhaust departmental remedies, and only consider writ jurisdiction after adjudication/appeal.