In this guide
GST taxpayers frequently receive Form GST ASMT-10 where the department compares Input Tax Credit claimed in GSTR-3B with credit reflected in GSTR-2A or GSTR-2B. A recent discussion has raised an important legal argument: since GSTR-2A/2B is generated mainly from suppliers’ filings, can the recipient’s ASMT-10 notice based on this mismatch be treated as invalid under Section 61?
The argument arises from the wording of Section 61, which refers to scrutiny of the return and related particulars “furnished by the registered person.”
However, taxpayers should not assume that every GSTR-3B vs GSTR-2A/2B ASMT-10 notice is legally invalid. The statutory rules and CBIC’s own scrutiny instructions expressly contemplate use of information available with the proper officer, including GST system data and information from other sources.
For GST notice review and reconciliation support:
What Does Section 61 Actually Say?
Section 61 of the CGST Act permits the proper officer to scrutinise a return and related particulars furnished by a registered person to verify the correctness of the return and communicate discrepancies.
This wording is the basis of the argument discussed in the transcript. GSTR-3B is furnished by the recipient taxpayer, but GSTR-2A and GSTR-2B are auto-generated statements largely based on details furnished by suppliers.
Viewed only through that phrase, a taxpayer may argue that supplier-generated information cannot itself be treated as “particulars furnished” by the recipient.
But Section 61 cannot be read in isolation.
Rule 99 Allows Scrutiny With Information Available to the Officer
Rule 99 of the CGST Rules specifically provides that when a return is selected for scrutiny, the proper officer scrutinises it under Section 61 with reference to information available with the officer. Where a discrepancy is identified, Form GST ASMT-10 can be issued seeking an explanation.
This is important because Rule 99 does not restrict the officer to information personally uploaded by the taxpayer receiving the notice.
The current administrative framework therefore does not support the proposition that outside system-generated information can never be considered during Section 61 scrutiny.
CBIC SOP Expressly Permits Data From GSTN, DGARM and E-Way Bill Portal
CBIC’s Instruction No. 02/2023-GST, applicable to scrutiny for FY 2019-20 onwards, states that officers may rely on information available through returns and statements as well as data from sources such as DGARM, ADVAIT, GSTN and the E-Way Bill Portal.
The same instruction directs the officer to issue ASMT-10 for discrepancies noticed during this exercise and requires discrepancies to be specific rather than vague or general.
Therefore, the Department’s officially prescribed scrutiny mechanism clearly envisages comparison with information beyond a single GSTR-3B return.
CBIC Has Specifically Prescribed GSTR-3B vs GSTR-2A Comparison
The strongest difficulty with the “all such notices are invalid” argument comes from CBIC’s earlier scrutiny SOP.
Instruction No. 02/2022-GST contained an indicative list of scrutiny parameters. It specifically instructed officers to compare “All other ITC” claimed in Table 4(A)(5) of GSTR-3B with relevant information available in GSTR-2A.
The SOP also contemplated several other comparisons involving GSTR-2A, supplier filing status, reverse-charge transactions and e-way bill information.
Accordingly, there is an express administrative foundation for ITC mismatch scrutiny.
GSTR-3B vs GSTR-2A/2B Rules Depend on the Financial Year
A mismatch does not automatically mean the taxpayer must reverse the entire ITC. The relevant legal period is extremely important.
| Period | Broad ITC mismatch position |
|---|---|
| FY 2017-18 and 2018-19 | Circular 183 provides a special verification mechanism |
| 1 April 2019 to 31 December 2021 | Circular 193 provides period-specific reconciliation guidance |
| From 1 January 2022 | Supplier-reported/communicated invoice details became a statutory ITC condition |
| Current periods | GSTR-2B reconciliation is a key ITC control, subject to all Section 16 conditions |
CBIC issued Circular 183 specifically to deal with differences between ITC claimed in GSTR-3B and ITC appearing in GSTR-2A for FY 2017-18 and 2018-19. Circular 193 subsequently addressed such differences for the period from 1 April 2019 to 31 December 2021.
From 1 January 2022, the amended ITC framework linked eligibility more directly with invoice details furnished by the supplier and communicated to the recipient.
So Can an ASMT-10 ITC Mismatch Notice Be Challenged?
Yes—but not merely because GSTR-2A or GSTR-2B contains supplier-generated information.
Depending on the facts, taxpayers can examine objections such as:
- The mismatch calculation is factually incorrect or based on outdated data;
- Credit belonging to another tax period has been wrongly compared;
- Amendments, credit notes or subsequent supplier filings have not been considered;
- The notice ignores the ITC rules applicable to the particular financial year;
- The discrepancy is vague and does not explain invoice-wise or parameter-wise differences; or
- The taxpayer possesses invoices, receipt-of-goods/services evidence, payment records and other documents supporting eligibility.
CBIC’s 2023 SOP itself requires the officer to use the latest available data, since supplier compliance may change after the risk parameter was originally generated.
Do Not Treat ASMT-10 as a Final Tax Demand
An ASMT-10 is fundamentally a scrutiny communication asking the registered person to explain the discrepancy.
The taxpayer can submit the explanation through Form GST ASMT-11. If the proper officer finds the explanation acceptable, the proceedings are concluded through Form GST ASMT-12. If the discrepancy remains unresolved, further adjudication proceedings may follow.
Therefore, paying the amount mentioned in ASMT-10 without first reconciling the underlying ITC can be a costly mistake.
For assistance in contesting GST proceedings:
Practical Action Before Replying to an ITC Mismatch Notice
Prepare an invoice-wise reconciliation covering GSTR-3B, GSTR-2A/2B, purchase register, supplier GSTIN, invoice date, tax amount and the period in which ITC was claimed. Separately identify timing differences, supplier amendments, imports, reverse-charge credit and credits legitimately governed by older-period relaxation rules.
The defence should ultimately address ITC eligibility, not merely challenge the existence of GSTR-2A/2B.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is every ASMT-10 based on GSTR-3B vs GSTR-2B invalid?
No. Current GST Rules and CBIC scrutiny instructions permit officers to use information available through GSTN and other system sources while scrutinising returns.
Can the department compare GSTR-3B with GSTR-2A?
Yes. CBIC’s scrutiny SOP has expressly identified GSTR-3B versus GSTR-2A comparisons as scrutiny parameters.
Does a GSTR-2B mismatch automatically require ITC reversal?
No. The mismatch must be examined invoice-wise and under the law applicable to the relevant period.
How should I reply to ASMT-10?
The explanation is furnished in Form GST ASMT-11 with appropriate reconciliation and supporting evidence.
Can an ASMT-10 still be challenged?
Yes. Jurisdictional, procedural and factual grounds may exist in an individual case. But a blanket argument that every 3B-versus-2A/2B scrutiny notice is invalid is not supported by the existing CBIC scrutiny framework.
