TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 1679
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, "the CGST Act"), and was consequently time-barred. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE : (2) The petitioner-Company is engaged in the manufacturing and supplying of pigments and printing ink falling under Chapter-32, as well as other goods falling under Chapter-39 of the GST Tariff. (2.1) On 27.06.2022, the petitioner-Company received a notice in FORM GST ADT-01 under Section 65 of the CGST Act for conducting an audit in respect of F.Ys. 2017-18 to 2019-20. (2.2) Pursuant thereto, the Manager of the petitioner-Company appeared for a personal hearing on 12.07.2022 and submitted the relevant documents, including financial statements, audit reports, Form 26AS, cost audit report, income-tax returns, Forms 3 CD and 3 CB, GSTR-1, GSTR-3B, GSTR-9, GSTR-9C, an HSN-wise summary specifying the applicable tax rates, and the trial balance. (2.3) Thereafter, respondent No.4 sought the documents from the petitioner-Company, which had already been submitted in physical form as well as in PDF format. Accordingly, the petitioner-Company once again forwarded the documents referred to hereinabove to respondent No.4 by email dated 09.08.202....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ived, through email, the audit report prepared under Section 65(6) of the CGST Act in FORM GST ADT-02. (2.12) Thereafter, by email dated 02.08.2024, the petitioner-Company brought to the notice of the audit authorities that it had already submitted its reply to the audit findings by email dated 31.07.2024. It further pointed out that no opportunity had been afforded to it to explain its contentions in person. (2.13) Thereafter, respondent Nos.4 and 5 issued eight show-cause notices dated 02/03.08.2024, accompanied by eight DRC-01 forms, invoking Section 74 of the CGST Act and proposing recovery of the alleged tax dues, together with applicable interest and penalty. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-Company has preferred the present writ petition. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER-COMPANY : (3) Learned advocate Mr. Iyer, at the outset, has submitted that the impugned audit report is required to be quashed as it was prepared beyond the prescribed period of limitation of three months. It was further submitted that, in view of Section 65(4) of the CGST Act read with the Explanation thereto, the audit for F.Ys. 2017-18 to 2019-20 ought to have been completed within the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....allowed. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS : (4) In response to the foregoing submissions and opposing the present writ petition, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Archit P. Jani has submitted that the present writ petition is liable to be rejected as the audit report, as envisaged under the provisions of Section 65 of the CGST Act, was duly prepared within the prescribed period. He referred to the Explanation to Section 65 of the CGST Act and submitted that the petitioner-Company, by way of a wilful misstatement and suppression of facts, deliberately failed to furnish the requisite documents and therefore, the audit commenced at the place of business of the petitioner-Company i.e. place of business on 19.06.2024, and the final audit report was issued on 02.08.2024. It was further submitted that therefore, the audit was completed within the period of three months, as envisaged under Section 65 of the CGST Act. (4.1) It was thus submitted by the learned Senior Standing Counsel that the petitioner-Company had failed to provide the other requisite documents necessary for conducting the audit, despite the issuance of FORM GST ADT-01. Until the audit report in FORM GST....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts previously submitted by the petitioner-Company were once again sought. On the same date, the petitioner-Company, vide email, re-submitted the requisite documents for the financial years under consideration. A perusal of the e-mail and the documents referred to therein indicates that the said documents had already been furnished by the petitioner-Company on 12.07.2022, when its representative attended the personal hearing, and were once again attached to the email in PDF format. Upon perusal of the attached documents, it is revealed that the petitioner-Company had furnished 12 documents each for the F.Ys. 2017-18 and 2018-19, whereas eight documents were furnished for the F.Y. 2019-20. Almost three months later, the respondent authority after almost two months issued a reminder dated 02.11.2022 in Form GST ADT-01, reiterating the same contents. However, even in the reminder, the respondent again called for documents that had already been sought in the original Form GST ADT- 01. By email dated 15.02.2023, the petitioner-Company specifically informed the respondent authority that the relevant details and documentary evidence had already been submitted on an earlier occasion. (8)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the CGST Act or not. In order to answer the issue raised before us, it would be necessary to examine the provisions of Section 65 of the CGST Act, which read as follows: "65. Audit by tax authorities :- (1) The Commissioner or any officer authorised by him, by way of a general or a specific order, may undertake audit of any registered person for such period, at such frequency and in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) The officers referred to in sub-section (1) may conduct audit at the place of business of the registered person or in their office. (3) The registered person shall be informed by way of a notice not less than fifteen working days prior to the conduct of audit in such manner as may be prescribed. (4) The audit under sub-section (1) shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of commencement of the audit: Provided that where the Commissioner is satisfied that audit in respect of such registered person cannot be completed within three months, he may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the period by a further period not exceeding six months. Explanation.- For the purposes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o 2019-20 was issued on 27.06.2022. It is the case of the petitioner that all the requisite documents were furnished through email and that correspondence ensued between the petitioner and the respondent authorities with regard to the submission of the documents. Subsequently, a second notice (reminder) in Form ADT-01 was issued on 02.11.2022, calling upon the petitioner to furnish the documents. We find that the documents sought under the reminder were identical to those called for under the original Form ADT-01 dated 27.06.2022. The petitioner again furnished the documents by email dated 15.02.2023. Finally, another notice in Form GST ADT-01 was issued on 09.02.2024, additionally calling upon the petitioner-Company to produce the relevant documentary evidence for the F.Ys. 2021-22 and 2022-23. The respondents have contended that the petitioner had not furnished all the documents called for by the respondent authorities. Ultimately, the audit commenced at the place of business of the petitioner-Company on 19.06.2024, and the final audit report was prepared by the respondent authority on 02.08.2024 and communicated to the petitioner through email as well as by speed post. (13....