JUDGMENT : (A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.) This Writ Appeal is preferred by the petitioner in W.P. (C).No.39222 of 2024 aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.12.2024 of the learned Single Judge that dismissed the writ petition. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the Writ Appeal are as follows : The petitioner impugned the show cause notices issued to it under Sections 73 and 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as the “CGST/SGST Act”] as also the audit report dated 08.07.2024 on which they were based, inter alia on the contention that the audit in question was not completed within the time prescribed for the same under the CGST Act. The contention, in other words, was that since the audit envisaged under Section 65 of the CGST Act was not completed within the time limit of three months from the date of its commencement as envisaged thereunder, the audit report, as also the show cause notices issued based thereon, were without jurisdiction and therefore liable to be quashed. 3. The appellant points out that it was informed of the conduct of the audit by Ext.P1 notice dated 15.12.2023, which also specified the documents required by the audit team for conducting the audit. Thereafter, the audit team visited the business premises of the appellant in connection with the audit on 10.01.2024. The documents called for by the audit team were produced by the appellant on various dates, and the last submission of the said documents, as evidenced by Ext.P2, was on 19.02.2024. Thereafter, Ext.P3 audit enquiry notice dated 07.03.2024 was issued, pointing out the discrepancies observed during the audit and giving the appellant an opportunity of commenting on the same. The appellant is stated to have submitted Ext.P4 objections and requested for a personal hearing that ultimately took place on 09.04.2024, on which date the appellant also submitted additional documents that were requested by the Department, albeit without any written notice for the same. Thereafter, notwithstanding the statutory mandate under Section 65 of the CGST Act that required the audit to be completed within three months from the date of commencement of the audit, namely, 19.02.2024, the audit report was prepared only on 08.07.2024. 4. Thereafter, notwithstanding the statutory mandate under Section 65 of the CGST Act that required the audit to be completed within three months from the date of commencement of the audit, namely, 19.02.2024, the audit report was prepared only on 08.07.2024. 4. The learned Single Judge, who considered the matter, found that although the appellant had submitted the documents specifically requested in writing by the Department on 19.02.2024, inasmuch as the appellant had furnished additional documents, as requested by the Department, on 09.04.2024, the date of commencement of the audit for the purposes of the Explanation to Section 65(4) had to be seen as postponed to 09.04.2024, and viewed thus, the audit report dated 08.07.2024 was within the three months period envisaged under Section 65(4) for completion of the audit. The writ petition, in its challenge to the audit report and the consequent show cause notices, was therefore dismissed by the learned Single Judge as devoid of merit. 5. In the appeal before us, it is the submission of Sri.Joseph Markos, the learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri.Abraham Joseph Markos, the learned counsel, that merely because the appellant had produced additional documents as requested by the audit team during the audit proceedings, the date of commencement of the audit could not have been seen as postponed. According to the learned senior counsel, the date of commencement of audit is statutorily prescribed as the date on which the documents required by the audit team for commencing the audit were made available by the assessee. That date was 19.02.2024. Thereafter, on 07.03.2024, an audit enquiry notice was served on the appellant, which, by its very nature, could have been served only after the audit had “commenced”. The documents requested thereafter could only be seen as documents sought for during the audit proceedings that had already commenced and the submission of those documents could not have had the effect of postponing the date of commencement of the audit for the purposes of Section 65(4) of the CGST Act. 6. We find force in the submission of the learned senior counsel as regards the interpretation to be placed on the provisions of Section 65 of the CGST Act. Section 65 of the CGST Act reads as follows: “65. 6. We find force in the submission of the learned senior counsel as regards the interpretation to be placed on the provisions of Section 65 of the CGST Act. Section 65 of the CGST Act reads 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 of this sub-section, the expression "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 registered 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 registered person,-- (i) to afford him the necessary facility to verify the books of account or other documents as he may require; (ii) 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, within thirty days, inform the registered person, whose records are audited, about the findings, his rights and obligations and the reasons for such findings. (7) Where the audit conducted under sub-section (1) results in detection of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded, or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised, the proper officer may initiate action under section 73 or section 74.” 7. (7) Where the audit conducted under sub-section (1) results in detection of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded, or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised, the proper officer may initiate action under section 73 or section 74.” 7. A distinction has to be drawn between records and other documents called for by the tax authorities for “commencing the audit” and similar documents called for “during the audit”. The former are documents without which an audit cannot be commenced. The latter, however, can only be seen as a reference to documents that are required for clarifying certain aspects that may arise during the audit. It is not the case of the respondents that any of the documents originally called for by the tax authorities was not furnished by the appellant on 19.02.2024. That apart, the respondents had also served an audit enquiry notice on the appellant on 07.03.2024, which was clear evidence to show that the audit had commenced well before that date. It is also significant to note that the audit enquiry notice required the assessee to furnish any objections he had to the findings of the audit team, and therefore, it had necessarily to be a document that was issued after the commencement of the audit. Facts being so, the audit report dated 08.07.2024 was beyond three months from even the date of the audit enquiry notice and, therefore, not within the time limit specified under Section 65(4) of the CGST Act. We cannot, therefore, sustain the findings of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment that the completion of the audit was within the time contemplated under Section 65 of the CGST Act. 8. That said, we find that the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge can nevertheless be sustained on a more substantial ground. The provisions of Section 65 of the CGST Act clearly indicate that the audit envisaged therein serves merely to provide the proper officer with additional material on the basis of which he can initiate action under Sections 73, 74 or 74A of the CGST Act. The provisions of Section 65 of the CGST Act clearly indicate that the audit envisaged therein serves merely to provide the proper officer with additional material on the basis of which he can initiate action under Sections 73, 74 or 74A of the CGST Act. Thus, so long as the audit report and the findings therein are made available to the proper officer within the time limit within which he can exercise his powers under Section 73, 74 or 74A of the CGST Act, the mere fact that the audit was complete beyond the time limit of three months envisaged under Section 65 of the CGST Act cannot have the effect of vitiating the proceedings initiated by a proper officer in terms of Sections 73, 74 and 74A of the CGST Act. In our view, this is especially so because the obtaining of an audit report is not a pre-condition for the initiation of the proceedings under Sections 73, 74 and 74A of the CGST Act and such proceedings can be initiated by the proper officer even without the aid of an audit report. The legality of a notice issued under Sections 73, 74 and 74A of the CGST Act would have to be tested on the basis of the said statutory provisions, including the period of limitation specified thereunder. 9. In the instant case, even if we were to agree with the learned Single Judge that the audit was completed beyond the period envisaged under Section 65, we cannot find it in ourselves to hold that the show cause notices issued based thereon under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act are, for that reason alone, vitiated in any manner. The reliance on a belated audit report cannot vitiate a notice issued by the proper officer under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act, if the said notices are otherwise in compliance with the statutory provisions. Thus, the Writ Appeal fails, and together with the writ petition is dismissed, albeit not for the reasons given by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. We make it clear that it will be open to the appellant to raise all objections to the show cause notices served on it, including on the aspect of limitation, in the adjudication proceedings that are to follow under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act.