Transfer of GST Audit File Between Departmental Wings: Delhi High Court Declines to Interfere Under Writ Jurisdiction
Background of the Writ Petition
The Delhi High Court in Siemens Healthcare Pvt Ltd Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court), W.P.(C) 16562/2024 and CM APPL. 70043/2024, decided on 12/08/2026, examined a challenge to the transfer of a GST audit file from one internal wing of the department to another.
The Petitioner, M/s Siemens Healthcare Pvt Ltd, approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, contesting the movement of its Goods and Services Tax (GST) audit file from the Audit Wing to the Anti-Evasion Wing within the same Commissionerate. The core grievance was not against a specific demand or adjudication order, but against the very act of transferring the file between departmental wings.
Assessee’s Contentions
Challenge to Authority of Audit Wing to Transfer File
Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Additional Commissioner (Audit Wing) lacked legal authority to transfer the audit file to the Anti-Evasion Wing. According to the Petitioner, such a transfer went beyond the statutory framework and was therefore invalid.
The emphasis of the challenge was:
- The audit proceedings had originally commenced under the Audit Wing.
- The Petitioner contended that the same authority could not unilaterally shift the matter to another wing, namely, the Anti-Evasion Wing.
- It was argued that this action had no explicit statutory backing in the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Reliance on Section 65 of the CGST Act
The Petitioner placed specific reliance on Section 65 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017:
Section 65governs the conduct of GST audits by the proper officer.- It provides that:
- An audit is to be completed within three (03) months from the date of commencement of the audit.
- The period may be extended by a further six (06) months if the Commissioner is satisfied and the statutory conditions are met.
On this basis, the Petitioner asserted:
- In the facts of the present case, the audit had been carried forward for nearly two (02) years.
- The statutory time limits prescribed under
Section 65were allegedly breached. - The Petitioner sought to link the transfer of the file to Anti-Evasion Wing with this extended and contested audit period.
In essence, the Petitioner attempted to argue that:
- The transfer was not a neutral, administrative move, but part of a continuation of an allegedly time-barred or irregular audit exercise.
- Hence, it should be set aside in writ proceedings.
Respondents’ Stand
Same Commissionerate, Different Internal Wings
On behalf of the Respondents, it was submitted that:
- Both the Additional Commissioner (Audit) and the Additional Commissioner (Anti-Evasion Wing) functioned under the same Commissionerate.
- The shift of the file from Audit to Anti-Evasion was depicted as an internal allocation of work within a single administrative hierarchy.
The Respondents thus portrayed the transfer as an intra-Commissionerate administrative step, rather than as a legal or jurisdictional overreach.
Non-Cooperation Allegation Against the Assessee
The Respondents further submitted that:
- The Petitioner had allegedly not cooperated with the Audit Wing.
- According to the Respondents, the Petitioner did not provide the documents requisitioned during the audit proceedings.
- Due to this alleged non-compliance and non-production of records, the department decided to move the matter to the Anti-Evasion Wing.
Thus, in the Respondents’ view, the transfer decision was driven by:
- The conduct of the assessee in not supplying required documents.
- The need to have the matter examined by a wing that deals with anti-evasion related aspects, within the same Commissionerate.