ASMT-10 Scrutiny Notice: How to Read It and Reply

An ASMT-10 notice is a notice for scrutiny of returns, issued under section 61 of the CGST Act read with rule 99, when the proper officer examines returns you have already filed and finds a discrepancy. It is not an audit, not an investigation and not a demand. Nothing is owed at this point. The notice quantifies what the officer thinks does not add up, and gives you thirty days to explain it in Form ASMT-11. Get the explanation right and the file closes with an ASMT-12 order.

What an ASMT-10 notice actually is

Section 61 gives the proper officer power to scrutinise the returns a registered person has filed, together with the particulars furnished with them, to verify their correctness. The officer does not visit your premises, does not call for your books at large and does not open a fresh assessment. He compares what you declared in one return against what you declared in another, and against data the department already holds about you from third-party sources. Where the figures do not reconcile, rule 99 requires him to inform you of the discrepancy in Form GST ASMT-10 and seek your explanation.

That framing matters more than anything else in this article, because most of the panic an ASMT-10 causes is misplaced. The notice does not allege fraud. It does not create a liability. It does not, by itself, put a single rupee on your electronic liability register. What it does is hand you a specific, bounded question about a specific period, and give you a window in which to answer it before the department decides whether to look harder.

The scrutiny process is also largely automated at its front end. The department runs its own analytics over the returns database, and the discrepancies that surface in ASMT-10 notices are overwhelmingly the ones a machine can find — differences between two numbers that ought to match. That is useful to know, because it tells you what kind of answer is wanted. The officer is not asking for a defence of your business model. He is asking why figure A does not equal figure B, and the right reply is a reconciliation that explains the gap.

What triggers an ASMT-10 in practice

The discrepancies that generate notices are consistent across jurisdictions, because they come from the same comparisons. The following are the ones that appear most often.

Notice how many of these are timing differences rather than errors. Credit taken in March on an invoice the supplier reported in April is a genuine mismatch in the March comparison and a complete non-issue once you show the April GSTR-2B. The same is true of a credit note issued in one period against an invoice raised in the previous one. A reply that explains the timing, with the two periods laid side by side, disposes of a large share of scrutiny notices without any tax being paid at all.

The process and the thirty-day clock

An ASMT-10 identifies the tax period under scrutiny, describes each discrepancy, and quantifies the tax, interest and any other amount that would become payable if the discrepancy were accepted. That quantification is an estimate, not a demand. It exists so you know the scale of what is being asked about.

The notice then requires an explanation within thirty days of service, or such further period as the proper officer permits. The notice is served electronically and appears on the portal under Services, then User Services, then View Additional Notices and Orders, with an email and SMS alert to the registered contacts. That last point catches people out. If the email address on your registration belongs to a consultant you parted ways with two years ago, the notice is still validly served and the clock is still running.

Replying in ASMT-11: accept, or explain

The reply goes in Form GST ASMT-11, filed online. There are exactly two substantive positions you can take on any given discrepancy, and a single notice frequently calls for both across different line items.

Accept the discrepancy and pay

Where the officer is right, pay the tax together with interest through Form DRC-03, which is the voluntary-payment challan, and then say so in ASMT-11 quoting the DRC-03 reference number, the date and the amount head-wise. Do this in that order. A reply that promises payment without a DRC-03 reference gives the officer nothing to verify, and paying voluntarily at the scrutiny stage is materially better than paying after a determination proceeding has been opened.

Explain why there is no discrepancy

Where the figure is defensible, say so and prove it. This is the more common case, and it means attaching the reconciliation, not merely asserting the conclusion. Timing differences, credit notes, amendments filed in a later GSTR-1, imports where credit appears in GSTR-2B under the ICEGATE flow rather than from a domestic supplier, and reverse-charge tax paid in cash and then availed as credit all produce apparent mismatches that resolve cleanly once the workings are on the table.

Where the officer accepts the explanation, rule 99(3) requires him to inform you in Form ASMT-12, and no further action is taken on those discrepancies for that period. File the ASMT-12 with the working papers for the year. It is the cheapest possible answer to the same question being asked again in a later scrutiny or an audit under section 65.

What happens if you do not reply

Section 61(3) is short and it is the whole reason the notice deserves attention. Where no satisfactory explanation is furnished within thirty days or the further period allowed, or where you accept the discrepancy but fail to take corrective action in the return for the month in which it is accepted, the proper officer may initiate appropriate action. In practice that means one of four things.

• Audit under section 65 — a departmental audit of your records for the period, conducted with notice, typically at your premises or at the office.
• Special audit under section 66 — where the officer considers the value or the credit claimed to be complex, your accounts are examined by a nominated chartered accountant or cost accountant.
• Inspection, search or seizure under section 67 — the intrusive end of the range, used where there is reason to believe suppression.
• Determination of tax under section 73 or 74 — a show-cause notice quantifying a demand, usually preceded by a DRC-01A intimation and issued formally in DRC-01.

The distinction between the two determination provisions is the one worth internalising. Section 73 covers tax not paid, short paid, erroneously refunded, or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised, without fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts — the honest error. It carries a comparatively modest penalty, and the statute deliberately leaves room to settle: pay the tax and interest before the notice is issued, or within the period the section allows after it, and the penalty consequences fall away or shrink sharply. Section 74 covers the same defaults with fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression, carries a substantially heavier penalty that applies even on voluntary payment, and gives the department a longer window to act.

For financial years from 2024-25 onwards, section 74A consolidates the two into a single framework with a common limitation period, while preserving the distinction in the penalty depending on whether fraud or suppression is present. Check the current penalty rates and time limits in the bare Act before quoting a number to anyone — they have been amended and the applicable provision now depends on which financial year the demand relates to.

The point of the escalation is not the penalty percentage. It is that once a determination proceeding starts, you are no longer explaining a figure to an officer who has not yet formed a view. You are contesting a quantified demand, and if you lose you are into the appeal process under APL-01, with pre-deposit, timelines and professional fees attached. Thirty days of reconciliation work is the cheapest stage of that whole sequence.

Drafting the reply, discrepancy by discrepancy

A good ASMT-11 reply reads like a reconciliation, not a letter. Work through the notice in the same order and using the same numbering the officer used, so that each of his paragraphs has one of yours facing it. Never leave a line unanswered: an unaddressed item is the one the officer carries forward, and silence on a point reads as acceptance without payment, which is the worst of both positions.

For each discrepancy, state the position in one sentence, then support it. Cite specific invoice numbers and dates, name the exact return and the exact table — GSTR-1 Table 4A, GSTR-3B Table 4(A)(5), GSTR-2B Table ITC Available — and attach the working as a separate schedule keyed to the paragraph number. Keep the tone factual. There is no advantage in arguing about the department analytics or the officer's competence, and considerable advantage in making his verification easy.

A short ITC reconciliation, of the kind that answers the single most common discrepancy, looks like this.

That structure does two things. It shows the officer exactly where each rupee of the difference went, and it demonstrates good faith by conceding the part that is genuinely wrong. A reply that explains most of a gap and pays the remainder is far more likely to end in ASMT-12 than one that contests everything.

Preventing the next one

Scrutiny notices are a lagging indicator. By the time one arrives the period is closed, memories have faded and the people who booked the invoices may have left. The work that prevents them is monthly and dull.

Reconcile GSTR-2B against your purchase register every month before you file GSTR-3B, rather than at year end. GSTR-2B is a static, period-locked statement, which makes it the right document to reconcile against and the one the department will use. Understand which credits are eligible in the first place under the input tax credit rules, and watch the outer deadline set by section 16(4) — credit that has fallen out of time cannot be rescued by a good explanation.

The harder discipline is supplier behaviour, because a large share of ITC mismatches are not your error at all. A supplier who stops filing, or whose registration is cancelled mid-year, leaves credit in your books with nothing behind it. Checking a supplier GST return filing status before you release payment, and reversing credit proactively where a supplier has gone dark, converts a future scrutiny notice into a routine ledger entry.

At any scale beyond a few dozen vendors this stops being a manual job. Automated daily vendor GSTIN monitoring flags a cancellation or a lapsed filing the week it happens rather than the year afterwards, and a return filing status API lets you fold the same check into your accounts-payable workflow so that no invoice is approved against a supplier who has stopped filing.

Frequently asked questions