Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST Update 06.09.2016

SECTION 49- AUDIT BY TAX AUTHORITIES

 
GST DAILY DOSE OF UPDATION:-
 
 
SECTION 49- AUDIT BY TAX AUTHORITIES:-
 
(1)                  The [Commissioner of CGST/Commissioner of SGST] or any officer authorised by him, by way of a general or a specific order, may undertake audit of the business transactions of any taxable person for such period, at such frequency and in such manner as may be prescribed.
 
(2)                   The tax authorities referred to in sub-section (1) may conduct audit at the place of business of the taxable person and/or in their office.
 
(3)                   The taxable person shall be informed, by way of a notice, sufficiently in advance, not less than fifteen working days, prior to the conduct of audit in the manner prescribed.
 
(4)                   The audit shall be carried out in a transparent manner and completed within a period of three months from the date of commencement of audit.
 
Provided that where the Commissioner is satisfied that audit in respect of such taxable person cannot be completed within three months from the date of commencement of audit, 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 of this sub-section, ‘commencement of audit’ shall mean the date on which the records and other documents, called for by the tax authorities, are made available by the taxable person or the actual institution of audit at the place of business, whichever is later.
 
(5)                   During the course of audit, the authorised officer may require the taxable person, to afford him the necessary facility to verify the books of account or other documents as he may require and which may be available at such place, to furnish such information as he may require and render assistance for timely completion of the audit.
 
(6)                   On conclusion of audit, the proper officer shall without delay inform the taxable person, whose records are audited, of the findings, the taxable person’s rights and obligations and the reasons for the findings.
 
(7)                   Where the audit conducted results in detection of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded, or input tax credit erroneously availed, the proper officer may initiate action under section 51.
 
 
It is pertinent to note that presently, under Service Tax Laws, there is a big question mark on whether audit can be conducted by service tax officers as the Delhi High Court has struck down Rule 5A(2) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 in case of TRAVELITE (INDIA) VS UNION OF INDIA [2014 (35) S.T.R. 653 (DEL)]. Moreover, recently, even the new Rule 5A(2) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 has been declared as ultra vires by the same Delhi High Court in the case of MEGA CABS PVT. LTD. VS UNION OF INDIA [2016 (43) S.T.R. 67 (DEL)] on the ground that revenue authorities are not empowered to conduct audit of records of assessee and the audit may be conducted only by Chartered Accountant or Cost Accountant. In light of the present context, the incorporation of provision regarding conduct of audit by revenue officers in GST should be re-looked. Furthermore, at present, there is no statutory provision for audit under Central Excise/Service Tax Laws but in the GST regime, it is proposed in section 42(4) that every registered taxable person whose turnover during a financial year exceeds the prescribed limit shall get his accounts audited by a Chartered Accountant or a Cost Accountant. It is pointed that when there is provision of statutory audit under the proposed GST regime and there is also provision of special audit being conducted by revenue department, then what is the need for incorporating provisions for conduct of audit by tax authorities.
 
 
 
On studying the above provisions, it is also worth noting that the audit by tax authorities shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of commencement of audit and this period may be further extended to six months by the Commissioner. Presently, there is no time period prescribed for audit conducted by departmental officers under Excise/Service Tax Laws and the audit is completed in maximum 15 days. However, the proposed GST regime provides that audit may be completed within 3 months and maximum within 6 months time period which is substantially high. With increased compliance by filing of 37 returns by an assessee on different dates in a month, if the revenue officers will conduct audit that may proceed upto 3 months, the assessee would hardly have time to conduct its business operations. Hence, the time limit for conducting audits should be revised on downward side.
 
 
You may also visit our FB page at the following link
 
https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/
 
 

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com