A recent discussion among indirect tax experts has revived an important debate regarding the scope of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s (CAG) role in GST administration, particularly in relation to access to records of private taxpayers and the role of departmental officers in facilitating such access.

The discussion emerged following an article discussing the interpretation of GST rates on canteen services and the observations made in a CAG report. While the report focused on tax treatment under GST, the subsequent professional debate shifted toward a broader and more fundamental issue—whether the CAG has the legal authority to obtain records of private taxpayers directly or indirectly through GST officers.

Concerns Over Alleged Encroachment on Jurisdiction

Several experts expressed concern that the process through which audit teams obtain taxpayer information may amount to an encroachment upon the jurisdiction of GST field formations.

According to some practitioners, High Courts have repeatedly indicated that audit teams cannot seek detailed information from private assessees during the course of auditing departmental functions. The argument advanced by these experts is that the CAG’s constitutional mandate is primarily to audit government receipts and departments, not private entities directly.

They contend that when audit teams request field officers to collect documents from taxpayers and provide them for audit purposes, it effectively amounts to indirect access to private records, something that courts have reportedly viewed with caution in past cases.

CBIC Instruction and Administrative Practice

The debate also examined Instruction No. 05/2025-GST issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), which outlines the procedure for handling requests from audit teams.

The instruction states that where documents required by the audit teams are available with the taxpayer, jurisdictional officers may send letters requesting the taxpayer to provide the information expeditiously. Officers are also expected to follow up so that the requested data can be made available to the audit teams.

Some tax administrators have suggested that the instruction may represent a practical compromise, particularly in light of judicial orders that had earlier restricted audit teams from directly visiting taxpayer premises.

However, the question raised by experts is whether proper officers can exercise statutory powers under tax laws to obtain documents solely for the purpose of assisting a CAG audit, especially when the audit mandate relates primarily to government departments.

Judicial Precedents and Ongoing Litigation

Participants in the discussion referred to several judicial precedents that have examined the limits of audit powers.

One notable ruling cited was a decision of the Kiran Gems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, where the Bombay High Court held that the CAG was not empowered to audit the accounts of a private entity through Central Excise Revenue Audit (CERA) without proper statutory sanction.

The court rejected the argument that the audit could extend to private companies merely to ascertain the government’s share of indirect taxes. The ruling emphasized that even if a private entity falls within the scope of the term “anybody” under the audit law, specific authorization would still be necessary for such an audit.

An appeal against this judgment by the Union of India is currently pending before the Supreme Court of India, leaving the issue open for final determination.

Experts also referred to interim orders passed by High Courts in matters concerning audit objections being communicated to taxpayers through departmental officers. These cases highlight the continuing judicial scrutiny surrounding the practice of raising tax demands based on audit observations.

The Question of Indirect Proceedings

Another significant issue discussed was the procedural chain through which audit objections eventually reach taxpayers.

According to practitioners familiar with the process, audit teams generally review the actions of departmental officers who conduct audits under Section 65 of the GST law. Based on their findings, the audit teams may raise objections relating to potential revenue leakage.

These objections are then communicated to jurisdictional officers, who in turn seek explanations or documents from taxpayers. If the taxpayer disputes the audit observation, departmental officers may still proceed to issue show cause notices (SCNs) to address the audit objection.

Experts pointed out that this sequence raises a critical legal question: whether proceedings initiated indirectly through audit objections are legally sustainable when the audit itself does not directly involve the taxpayer.

Divergent Views on Statutory Powers

The debate revealed sharply differing interpretations of the legal framework governing audit powers.

Some experts argued that the Comptroller and Auditor General’s (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971 grants the CAG broad authority to audit government receipts. In particular, they referred to provisions requiring the auditor to examine whether the assessment and collection of government revenue are being conducted properly.

Proponents of this view maintain that these provisions allow the CAG to examine records that form the basis of revenue transactions, which may include documents related to taxpayers where necessary for verifying government revenue.

Others strongly disagreed with this interpretation, asserting that auditing government receipts does not automatically extend to auditing the accounts of private entities. They also noted that during the formulation of the GST law, the GST Council had considered—but ultimately decided against—explicitly granting such powers in the statute.

GST Council Deliberations

The issue of audit powers had also been discussed during early deliberations of the GST framework.

Minutes of the GST Council meeting held in December 2016 indicate that a draft provision proposing to grant CAG explicit authority to call for information for GST audit purposes was debated.

During that meeting, several members expressed concern that such a provision might affect the independence of tax administration and the fairness of quasi-judicial proceedings. Ultimately, the Council decided not to include the provision in the final law, indicating that audit powers should remain governed by the CAG Act rather than the GST statute.

Concerns Over “Borrowed Satisfaction”

Another issue raised in the discussion was the possibility that departmental actions may sometimes be influenced primarily by audit observations.

Experts warned that if tax authorities issue show cause notices solely because an audit objection exists, without independently examining the facts or applying their own reasoning, the proceedings could be vulnerable to challenge.

Drawing parallels with income tax jurisprudence, some participants referred to the concept of “borrowed satisfaction,”where proceedings initiated without independent application of mind may be considered legally invalid.

They emphasized that adjudicating authorities must independently evaluate evidence and legal arguments, rather than relying exclusively on audit findings.

Practical Challenges Faced by Officers

Despite the legal debate, several participants acknowledged the practical challenges faced by tax officers.

In many cases, officers reportedly feel compelled to provide documents or initiate proceedings because audit teams raise significant objections relating to potential revenue loss. In some instances, failure to cooperate with audit teams has even led to disciplinary proceedings against officials.

As a result, officers often adopt a balanced approach, providing the requested information while leaving the ultimate legal determination to adjudication or judicial review.

Continuing Uncertainty

The debate highlights the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the extent of CAG’s powers in the GST regime. While constitutional provisions and the CAG Act grant broad oversight over government finances, the precise boundary between auditing government receipts and accessing taxpayer records remains contested.

With appeals pending before the Supreme Court and continued litigation in High Courts, the issue is likely to remain an important subject of discussion in the field of indirect taxation.

For now, experts agree on one point: any tax demand or adjudication must ultimately be based on independent legal reasoning and evidence, irrespective of the source of the initial audit observation.

BUY NOW : E-Magazine: 500 Landmark GST Judgments (2018–2025)

Source: This article has been prepared based on the opinions, perspectives, and legal inputs shared by senior tax administrators and indirect tax experts during a discussion in the IRS IDT PMLA⚖️Chitkara and Elite GST@Chitkara Sir.JurisHour WhatsApp group. The views reflected are part of a professional exchange of ideas on evolving GST jurisprudence and should be understood in the context of that discussion.

BUY NOW : E-Magazine: 500 Landmark GST Judgments (2018–2025)