INTRODUCTION
For long taxes in India and the world over have worked on the principle of self-assessment, meaning a registered taxpayer (RTP) would himself assess his liability and discharge the same as per the provisions applicable under the respective statute by filing the prescribed returns. Once the self-assessment process is concluded, the tax authorities initiate the process of verifying the correctness of the taxes paid by the RTP under the self-assessment scheme which involved interaction with the RTPs / their consultants.
Under the pre-GST regime, with the presence of multiple taxes, there were multiple assessments in different forms that an RTP had to undergo. The VAT law provided for a concept of assessment which was done on a year-on-year basis requiring the RTP to visit the tax department with box-loads of files to demonstrate various claims and positions taken by him, while the Central Excise / Service tax followed a detailed Audit structure, which was commonly known as EA-2000 Audit, and in respect of which a detailed manual for the tax officials on how an Audit on taxpayer records should be carried out was also issued.
Apart from these, there were provisions for investigation, special audits, etc., under the respective statutes which empowered the tax authorities to undertake further verification. The same practice has also been followed under the GST regime with the law providing for different methods of assessment such as Provisional Assessment (section 60), Scrutiny in different scenarios (sections 61 to 64), Audit by Tax Authorities (section 65), Special Audit (section 66) and investigation (section 66).
ASSESSMENT VS. SCRUTINY VS. AUDIT VS. INVESTIGATION
The term assessment has been defined u/s 2(11) to mean determination of tax liability under this Act and includes self-assessment, re-assessment, provisional assessment, summary assessment and best judgment assessment. The above definition demonstrates that while there can be different forms of assessments, their purpose is to determine the tax liability of a person, whether or not such person is registered.
But while the term ‘scrutiny’ has not been specifically defined, the way the provisions u/s 61 have been worded indicate that scrutiny is to be seen vis-à-vis the correctness of the particulars furnished in the returns. Therefore, the scope of scrutiny would generally cover cases where there is a mismatch between GSTR1 and GSTR3B or non-disclosure of certain information in the returns, etc. In other words, the basis for scrutiny proceedings should only be the returns filed and nothing else. In that sense, this is similar to intimation issued u/s 143 (1) of the Income-tax Act.
The term ‘audit’, on the other hand, has been defined u/s 2(13) to mean the examination of records, returns and other documents maintained or furnished by the registered person under this Act or the rules made thereunder or under any other law for the time being in force to verify the correctness of turnover declared, taxes paid, refund claimed and input tax credit availed, and to assess his compliance with the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder.
Lastly, the term investigation, which generally encompasses ‘inspection, search, seizure and arrest’, is undertaken by the tax authorities when they have reason to suspect suppression by an RTP whether of liability on supply of goods / services or claim of input tax credit. Any proceedings under this category can be initiated only after approval by the competent authority and empowers the tax authorities to confiscate the records of the RTP.
A plain reading of the above clearly indicates the distinction in the concept behind each of the steps and the very distinction needs to be respected. The same can be summarised as under:
• Assessment – determination of tax liability,
• Scrutiny – to verify the correctness of the returns filed,
• Audit – to verify the overall compliance with the provisions of GST, including returns filed, credits / refunds claimed, etc.,
• Investigation – to undertake verification based on specific information received relating to suppression by an RTP– either in respect of liability or input tax credit.
A primary question which generally arises and is also experienced in daily proceedings is whether there can be parallel proceedings. For example, can scrutiny of an RTP be undertaken when the audit for the same period is already going on? Or can an RTP be subjected to parallel proceedings – audit by one wing and investigation by another? In a recent decision in the case of
Suresh Kumar PP vs. Dy. DGGI, Thiruvananthapuram [2020 (41) GSTL 308 (Ker.)], the single-member Bench had refused to intervene when parallel proceedings, audit u/s 65 and investigation were initiated. In fact, the HC held that
interferences in process issued for auditing of books as well as order of seizure of the documents would help the Department in correlating the entries in document and at the time of auditing of the account.
When appealed before the Division Bench [reported in 2020 (41) GSTL 17 (Ker.)], while the High Court held that there was no infirmity in the audit and investigation proceedings being continued simultaneously, the Revenue itself submitted that once the investigation proceedings are initiated, the audit proceedings shall stand vacated. This is an important takeaway from this judgment (although in favour of Revenue) for RTPs who are facing parallel proceedings at the same time for the same period. The RTP can always contend that since the Department has taken a stand in one case that once investigation commences audit proceedings shall be discontinued, the same should be followed in other cases as well. However, it remains to be seen whether or not the Revenue follows this stand in all the cases.
In this background, we shall now discuss the provisions relating to audit u/s 65 for which many RTPs have already started receiving notices and some important aspects which revolve around the same.
SCOPE OF AUDIT
The term ‘audit’ has been defined u/s 2(13) and reproduced above. On going through the same, it is apparent that the scope of audit is to be restricted to
‘examination of records, returns and other documents maintained or furnished by the registered person’.
While the term ‘record’ has not been defined, the term ‘document’ has been defined u/s 2(41) to include written or printed record of any sort and electronic record as defined in clause (t) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000). Section 145 further provides that any document, which is maintained in a microfilm or reproduced as image embodied in a microfilm or a facsimile copy of a document or statement contained in a document and included in printed material produced by a computer or any information stored electronically in any device or media including hard copies made of such information, shall be deemed to be a document for the purposes of this Act. It is, therefore apparent that all documents which are stored in a scanned copy should be sufficient during the audit purpose. This should apply also for copies of purchase invoices, sales invoices, etc., which, during the audit, tax authorities generally insist upon for physical verification.
The second important takeaway from the definition of ‘audit’ which to some extent also defines the scope of ‘audit’, is that the examination is to be of the documents maintained or furnished by the registered person, i.e., things which are within the reach of the RTP being audited. Therefore, what can be the subject matter of audit is only such documents / records which are maintained / furnished by the RTP and are within his control. Therefore, the audit team cannot insist on a reconciliation based on figures appearing in form 26AS and demand tax on the mismatch since the form 26AS is not maintained / furnished by the RTP, but prepared by the Government based on disclosures made by the RTPs’ clients / suppliers. This view finds support from the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sharma Fabricators & Erectors Private Limited vs. CCE, Allahabad [2017 (5) GSTL 96 (Tri. All.)] where the Tribunal had set aside the demand raised based on TDS certificates issued by the clients and not the books of accounts of the RTP.
A similar issue is likely to arise in case of mismatch between GSTR3B and GSTR2A. GSTR3B is the monthly return wherein an RTP also lodges a claim for input tax credit while GSTR2A is the document wherein the supplies disclosed by the supplier in GSTR1 are disclosed and auto-populated and made available to the recipient. A strong view can be taken that GSTR3B and GSTR2A are not comparable documents as GSTR2A is not maintained / furnished by the recipient. However, such a stand may not be accepted by the Department after the introduction of Rule 36(4) as the scope of audit is to look at the overall correctness of the returns furnished by the RTP and compliance with the various provisions of the Act and Rules framed therein.
In fact, on the issue of whether an audit can be conducted when there is apprehension that certain amounts were kept outside of the accounts, the Supreme Court has, while admitting the appeal in the case of Commissioner vs. Ranka Wires Private Limited [2006 (197) ELT A83 (SC)], sought an affidavit from the Revenue as to why the audit was conducted when the show cause notice alleged that certain amounts were kept out of the accounts. This indicates that even the Supreme Court is of the view that in a case where the dispute revolves around transactions outside the books of accounts of the RTP, the same is a fit case for investigation and not audit.
LEGAL VALIDITY
Under the Service Tax regime, the power to conduct audit was derived from Rule 5A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. However, there were no enabling powers under the Finance Act, 1994 empowering the Central Government to frame rules relating to Department Audit. For this reason, the Delhi High Court has, in the case of
Mega Cabs Private Limited vs. UoI [2016 (43) STR 67 (Del. HC)] held Rule 5A as ultra vires the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. This dispute continued even after the introduction of GST where the notice for conducting audits was challenged on the grounds that the savings clause under the CGST Act, 2017 did not save the right of the Revenue to conduct audit u/r 5A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. There have been conflicting decisions of the High Courts in this regard and therefore the dispute will reach finality only with a judgment of the Apex Court.
However, the above decision may not continue to apply under GST. The basis for the conclusion in the case of Mega Cabs (Supra) was that there was no enabling provision under the Finance Act, 1994 which empowered the Central Government to make Rules relating to audit. However, under the GST regime there are specific provisions which empower the Government to undertake Department Audit and frame rules in regard to the same.
AUDIT U/S 65 – PROCEDURAL ASPECTS
The detailed procedure to be followed while conducting audit has been provided for u/s 65 of the CGST Act, 2017. In addition, the CBIC has also issued a detailed Manual for steps to be followed before, during and after the audit.
Selection of registered person for audit
This is the first step of the audit process. This requires following of the risk-assessment method for selection of the RTP who shall undergo audit. The entire process would be facilitated based on the available registered person-wise data, the availability of which would be ensured by the Audit Commissionerate. Based on the process of risk assessment undertaken, the list of RTPs selected for the audit would be shared with the Audit Commissionerate, along with the risk indicators, i.e., area of focus for the Audit Team. The Audit Commissionerate would also be at liberty to select RTPs at random for undertaking of audit based on local risk perception in each category of small, medium and large units as well as those registered u/s 51 and 52 to verify compliance thereof.
The Manual also speaks of accrediting such RTPs, who have a proven track record of compliance with tax laws, though the procedure for such accreditation is yet to be provided. RTPs who have received accreditation shall not be subjected to audit up to three years after the date of the last audit.
Authorisation for conducting audit
The first formal step after selection of the RTP liable to be audited is authorisation u/s 65(1) to conduct the said audit, either by the Commissioner or any officer authorised by a general or specific order. U/r 101 it has been provided that the period of audit shall be a financial year or part thereof, or multiples thereof. This is the enabling provision for initiating the audit process and unless a valid authorisation has been obtained, the entire proceedings would be treated as null and void.
One may refer to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Devilog Systems India vs. Collector of Customs, Bangalore [1995 (76) ELT 520 (Kar.)] where a notice not issued by a ‘proper officer’ was held to be invalid. On the other hand, recently the Delhi High Court has, in the case of RCI Industries & Technologies Limited vs. Commissioner, DGST [2021-VIL-31-Del.], held that if an officer of the Central GST initiates intelligence-based enforcement action against an RTP administratively assigned to a State GST, the officers of the former would not transfer the said case to their counterparts in the latter Department and they would themselves take the case to its logical conclusion.
A question might arise as to whether or not the auditee should be given an opportunity of being heard before his name is selected for the purpose of conducting audit u/s 65(1). This aspect has been dealt with by the High Court in the case of Paharpur Cooling Towers Limited vs. Senior Joint Commissioner [2017 (7) GSTL 282 (Cal.)] wherein, in the context of VAT, the Court held that subjecting an assessee to audit does not result in adverse civil consequence and therefore the question of giving a hearing before selection does not arise.
However, while selecting an RTP for special audit, the Delhi High Court has held in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. [2017 (52) STR 116 (Del.)] that since an order for special audit is likely to cause prejudice, hardship and displacement to the assessee, the requirement of issuance of a show cause notice ought to be read into section 58A of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 so as to grant reasonable opportunity for representation.
Pre-Audit preparation
This is where the actual audit process concerning an RTP commences. The first step is to prepare the Registered Person Master Profile (RPMF) which contains details that can be extracted from the Registration Certificate, such as
application for registration, registration documents and returns filed by the registered person as well as from his annual return, E-way Bills, reports / returns submitted to regulatory authorities or other agencies, Income-tax returns, contracts with his clients, audit reports of earlier periods as well as audits conducted by other agencies, like office of the C&AG, etc., most of which will be available in the GSTN.
The Manual speaks about a utility ‘RTPs at a Glance’ made available to the Audit Team which would contain a comprehensive data base about an RTP. It appears primarily to be a facility exclusively for the Audit Team and not for the auditee. The Manual also requires that before the start of each audit the RPMF should be updated based on the details available or sourced from the auditee and the same should be updated periodically after completion of audit. Various documents gathered during the audit, such as audit working papers, audit report duly approved during Monitoring Meeting, etc., along with the latest documents should also form part of the RPMF.
AUTHORS’ VIEWS
The Audit Manual speaks about RPMF which needs to be collated and updated by the Jurisdictional Audit Commissionerate. This is a novel concept aimed at improving the quality of the process and would also help the Audit Team become aware about the auditee. However, maintenance of records in the specified format prescribed in the Audit Manual is not something new but one that was also used during the EA 2000 Audit. Past experience indicates that the Audit Teams generally shift the onus to compile and collect the basic details which is cast on them on to the auditees and such an exercise is started only when the audit nears completion and the file is to be put before the monitoring committee for review.
In fact, in the notices currently received it is seen that even the RPMF is being sent to the auditee for submission along with intimation in Form GST ADT 01 and the list of documents required for the audit. Therefore, perhaps to this extent, the process laid down by the Manual appears to have failed to achieve the stated objective. This is because only after the profiling activity is undertaken is the audit allocated to the audit parties.
Audit intimation
The next step, after undertaking profiling of the RTP / auditee, is to allocate the audit to the audit parties. The audit parties are expected to issue intimation in Form GST ADT 01 giving the auditee at least 15 days to provide the details required for the audit as provided for u/s 65(3). An indicative list of information to be requisitioned by the audit party has been provided in Annexure III of the Audit Manual.
Section 65 clearly requires that a general / specific order be issued by the Commissioner / an officer authorised by him stating that the RTP has been selected for Department Audit for the period specified therein. Such a list has already been released by the Maharashtra State authorities where the audit will be conducted by the respective State Audit Team. Any RTP receiving intimation for audit should check:
• Whether the notice has been received from his jurisdiction, i.e., an RTP allotted to State cannot be audited by Central authorities and vice versa;
• The second point to check is whether the general order specifically mentions the RTP. If not, a request for a specific order should be made in writing to the Audit Team as absence of the same would render the entire proceedings being without the authority of law and any proceedings emanating from such an exercise might not survive the test of law.
Vide Explanation to section 65, it has been clarified that the term ‘commencement of audit’ shall be the date on which the records and other documents called for by the tax authorities are made available by the registered person, or the actual institution of audit at the place of business, whichever is later. This is important because section 65 provides that once the audit process commences, the same must be concluded within three months which period can be extended by the Commissioner for a further period of up to six months for reasons to be recorded in writing.
It is therefore of utmost importance that the RTP under audit maintain proper communication regarding submission of documents and once all the documents sought by the Audit Team are submitted, a formal letter intimating them about the same should be filed. This is important because under the service tax regime, while dealing with the issue of what constitutes commencement of audit, the Tribunal has in the case of Surya Enterprises vs. CCE & ST, Chennai II [2020 (37) GSTL 320 (Tri. Che.)] held that mere issuance of a letter requesting for submission of documents could not be considered as initiation of audit. The Department had to demonstrate that the audit was commenced by producing its register of audit visit.
Desk Review
On the basis of the response of the auditee, the Audit Party is expected to undertake a Desk Review to understand the operations, business practice and identify potential audit issues. The Desk Review proposed in the Manual is an exhaustive process to be undertaken by the Audit Party for the preparation of the audit plan, which includes:
• Referring to RPMF which would throw up various points meriting inclusion in the audit plan;
• Analysis of exports turnover, turnover of non-taxable / exempted goods and service to obtain a clear picture of the transactions not considered for tax payment and arrive at a prima facie opinion on the correctness of such claims;
• Determine the various mismatches, such as GSTR1 vs. GSTR3B, credits as per 3B vs. 2A, etc., which should be discussed in the Audit Plan for verification at the time of audit;
• Undertake ratio analysis, trend analysis and revenue risk analysis based on the documents obtained up to that stage and reconciling the same with the Third Party Information, such as Form 26AS, ITR, etc., and analysing the variances;
• Prepare a checklist (different checklists have been prescribed for traders and composite dealers)
Audit plan
The next activity is to prepare the audit plan based on the above activities undertaken by the Audit Team. The Manual specifically highlights the importance of the Audit Plan and the steps preceding its preparation. It also specifies the preferable format in which the Audit Plan is to be prepared and requires that the same should be discussed with the Assistant / Deputy Commissioner and finalised after approval of the Commissioner / Joint or Additional / Deputy or Assistant, as the case may be.
Audit verification
The next step is to undertake audit verification. Section 65(2) provides that the audit ‘may’ be conducted at the POB of the RTP or in their office. The purpose of audit verification, as per the Manual, is to perform verification activities and obtain audit evidence by undertaking verification of data / documents submitted at the time of desk review and verification of points mentioned in the Audit Plan.
The primary activity to be carried out during Audit Verification is evaluation of internal controls which has been dealt with extensively in the Manual as it lays down different techniques to be followed for this process, including walk-through, ABC analysis, etc., and requires the various findings to be recorded in the working papers, the formats of which have also been specified in Annexure VIII of the Manual.
Additionally, the auditor is also required to undertake verification of all the points mentioned in the Audit Plan. The primary point to verify is whether any weakness in internal control of the auditee has resulted in loss of revenue to the Government. The Audit Team is also expected to verify various documents submitted to Government Departments which can be used for cross-verification of information filed for the assessment of GST.
Audit observations
The next step as per the Manual is to communicate the various audit observations to the auditee and obtain his feedback on the same. The Manual categorically states that an audit observation is not a show cause notice but only an exercise for understanding the perspective of the auditee on a particular issue and clearly states that wherever a suitable reply is provided by the auditee, the same may be removed from the findings and excluded from the draft audit report after approval of the seniors.
However, the Manual further states that where the response of the auditee is not forthcoming, the observation should be included in the draft audit para specifically stating the non-submission of response by the auditee.
This is an important step in the Manual. Even under the EA 2000 Audit it has been seen that whenever an observation letter is shared with the auditee, it is more in the nature of a show cause notice, rather than seeking the viewpoint of the auditee on a particular issue and in the observation para itself there is a statement saying that the payment of the tax amount, along with interest and penalty, be made and compliance be reported to the Audit Team. This contrasts with the purpose of the concept of communication of observation as it takes the shape of a recovery notice rather than a routine communication.
Unless the Audit Team is sensitised about this aspect, the Audit Manual will lose its purpose as it is unlikely the approach of the Audit Team would change even after issuance of this Manual. It has also been seen that the Team expects a reply to the observation para, at times in one to two days. The Audit Team needs to be sensitised to the fact that the auditee resources must also carry out their regular activity and they can, at no point of time, be fully dedicated only to the Department Audit process. Even otherwise, certain observation paras may involve legal issues that may need more time, including the auditee obtaining legal advice for drafting a reply to the same in which case a reply at such a short notice may not be feasible. Therefore, it is essential that a standardised format for sharing of audit observation and sufficient time to the auditee for replying to the same be prescribed.
Preparation of audit report
Once the above exercise is concluded, the Audit Team is expected to prepare a draft audit report for onward submission to senior officers and should be placed before the Monitoring Cell Meeting (MCM) for discussion on various points raised therein. It is during the MCM that the decisions of issuing notices, including invocation of extended period of limitations, are taken or issuance of a show cause notice can be waived.
Based on the decisions taken during the MCM, a Final Audit Report (FAR) has to be prepared which will also be conveyed to the auditee. Section 65(6) provides that on conclusion the ‘Proper Officer’ shall within 30 days inform the auditee about the findings, the reasons for such findings and his rights and obligations. The same shall be intimated in form GST ADT 02 as notified vide Rule 101(5). It is only after the issuance of the final audit report u/s 65(6) that recovery proceedings u/s 73 or 74 can be initiated.
It is imperative to note that generally the recovery proceedings are initiated before the issuance of the FAR. At the time of receipt of a show cause notice, the auditee needs to ensure whether the same is received prior to the issuance and receipt of the FAR or afterwards. It is imperative to note that even under the pre-GST regime, (recently) in Sheelpa Enterprises Private Limited vs. Union of India [2019 (367) ELT A17 (Guj.)] the High Court has admitted a writ petition challenging the validity of a show cause notice issued prior to the issuance of the FAR.
The Final Audit Report shall comprise of the decision taken on the audit paras, including cases where the show cause notice is issued / to be issued and cases where a decision to not initiate proceedings has been taken.
Respecting timelines
Section 65, Rule 101 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and the Audit Manual issued by the CBIC strongly reiterate the importance of adhering to timelines, both for initiation of audit as well as conclusion. The fact that this aspect has been specifically included in the statute demonstrates the intention of the Legislature to ensure timely compliance of the proceedings. This is a positive aspect because under the EA 2000 there were no strict timelines prescribed, but rather only guidelines which meant that the EA 2000 audit in many cases kept going on for a long stretch of time.
While this is a positive move on the part of the Legislature to include the timelines in the statute itself, it will also cast an onerous responsibility on the auditees to ensure that they have submitted all the information sought by the Audit Team within the prescribed time. Besides, proper documentation and acknowledgement of submission of documents would also be important since it is possible that the Audit Team might dispute the date of ‘commencement of audit’ itself citing receipt of incomplete data. It is therefore advisable that the fact of non-availability of certain details (for instance, state-wise trial balance) be intimated to the Audit Team at the initial stage itself.
The RTP should also note that in case of delay in submission, there might be adverse action taken on account of non-submission. For example, if an RTP has claimed certain exemption and the supporting documents for which are not submitted within the timelines prescribed by the Audit Team, it is possible that they may end up with an observation letter which would result in unnecessary initiation of a protracted litigation since the experience suggests that an observation para generally culminates in issuance of a show cause notice.
Therefore it is imperative that an RTP who has already received audit notice or is likely to receive one, prepares basic documentation which can be shared immediately with the Audit Team as and when asked, such as state-wise trial balances, details of exports along with FIRC details, basis for claim of exemption, reconciliation of earnings / expenditure in foreign currency with GST filings, etc. Perhaps a lot of the information sought by the Audit Team is generally required during the audit u/s 35. It would therefore be prudent that the RTP / consultants prepare the supporting file during the audit u/s 35 itself so that not only is there no duplication of work, but they also become aware of any specific issues.
An assessee, who was also registered under service tax, will agree that a lot of litigations under that tax were on account of non-submission of the above information. Of course, the Courts have time and again held that demand cannot be based merely on account of a difference in two figures and should be supported with proper evidence. One may refer to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Go Bindas Entertainment Private Limited vs. CST, Noida [2019 (27) GSTL 397 (Tri. All.)].
Other points to note
An audit process involves substantial human element and therefore needs to be handled carefully on all fronts, be it sharing of information or interacting with the Audit Team owing to the subjectiveness of the auditor. The auditee / their consultants must bear this aspect in mind while interacting. It is important that at no point of time should they antagonise the Audit Team. This is important because if such a situation arises, it is likely that the Audit Team might raise meritless observations which would culminate in the issuance of show cause notices and the initiation of unnecessary protracted litigations.
One important aspect which needs to be noted by the readers, although out of context but arising from the Department Audit process, is that whenever a notice is issued by the Audit Team it is generally issued invoking the extended period of limitation alleging fraud, wilful misstatement, etc., with the intention to evade payment of tax. Such audit notices generally allege that ‘had the audit not been conducted, the fact of the said contravention, which can be either non-payment of tax / excess claim of input tax credit and so on, would have gone unnoticed’. It is imperative to note that merely making such a statement is not sufficient for invocation of extended period of limitation. There must be some demonstration that there prevailed an intention to evade payment of tax and the allegation of fraud, wilful misstatement, etc., should be demonstrated with supporting documentation by the Audit Team. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal has, in the case of Popular Caterers vs. Commissioner, CGST, Mumbai West [2019 (27) GSTL 545 (Tri. Mum.)], held that suppression can’t be alleged merely because the Audit Team found certain credits inadmissible.
The High Court has, in the case of Haiko Logistics Private Limited vs. UoI [2017 (6) GSTL 235 (Del.)] raised serious questions on the act of seizure of documents undertaken during the audit process.
Similarly, no summons can be issued in pursuance of the audit process. The Tribunal in the case of Manak Textiles vs. Collector of Central Excise [1989 (42) ELT 593 (Tri. Del.)] held that a statement made to an audit party is not valid as the Audit Party has no authority to record any statement. This principle should apply under GST also as audit is conducted u/s 65 while powers to record statements are governed u/s 70.
CONCLUSION
While the Audit Manual indicates the intention of the CBIC to make the entire process smooth and systematic, it remains to be seen how the same is implemented. Past experience shows that the Department Audit is generally an exhausting process resulting in unwarranted litigation, which in India is protracted and costly. It is therefore important that the RTP prepare for audit on an annual basis, irrespective of whether a notice for the same is received or not, and keep the documentation ready to the extent possible.
