Mandarina Apartment Owners Welfare vs CTO: Madras HC on Section 61 ASMT-10 Notice

This case study examines a Madras High Court order on whether a GST proper officer must issue a Form ASMT-10 scrutiny notice under Section 61 before proceeding to adjudicate discrepancies in a taxpayer's returns — a recurring procedural question in GST scrutiny litigation.

This page is a research summary of one specific Indian tax judgment, NOT legal advice. Always verify against the full judgment and consult a professional for case-specific guidance.

---

The case at a glance

• Parties: Mandarina Apartment Owners Welfare
• Bench: Madras High Court
• Date: 16 July 2024
• Court level: High Court
• Sections engaged: 61
• Outcome: Taxpayer succeeded

---

Facts of the case

The order disposes of two writ petitions heard together. In the first, filed by Mandarina Apartment Owners Welfare Association, a show cause notice dated 28.12.2023 was uploaded on the GST portal but, according to the petitioner, was not communicated through any other mode, so the petitioner remained unaware of the proceedings and could not participate. An order was subsequently issued on 11.04.2024, along with a consequential DRC-07.

In the second petition, filed by M/s. Gani Fashion, the petitioner had received a show cause notice dated 05.09.2023 calling upon it to explain a lower sales turnover compared to its purchase turnover. After two reminders, the petitioner replied on 06.11.2023 stating that the relevant sales turnover had been reported in a subsequent month. An order was nonetheless issued on 23.12.2023.

Both petitioners argued that the proceedings against them arose from scrutiny of returns, which — per their submission — is governed by Section 61 read with Rule 99, and that a notice in Form GST ASMT-10 ought to have preceded any adjudication based on discrepancies found during such scrutiny.

---

Issues raised

• Whether issuance of a notice in Form GST ASMT-10 under Section 61 read with Rule 99 is a mandatory pre-requisite before adjudication proceedings can be initiated on the basis of discrepancies noticed during scrutiny of returns.
• Whether the failure of a taxpayer to reply to a show cause notice forecloses the argument that non-issuance of an ASMT-10 notice vitiates the proceedings.
• Whether scrutiny, audit, special audit or inspection on one hand, and adjudication on the other, operate independently of each other, such that the former is not a condition precedent for the latter.
• Whether the rule of consistency applies where an ASMT-10 notice was issued for an identical discrepancy in a different assessment period for the same taxpayer.

---

What the court held

The court's reasoning, as recorded, is that the consequence of not issuing the ASMT-10 notice vitiates the scrutiny process, which in turn implies that the resulting assessment order is flawed. On this basis the petitioners succeeded in their challenge to the impugned orders.

The petitioners' counsel built the case around a reading of Section 61 together with Rule 99: discrepancies noticed on scrutiny of returns are meant to trigger a notice in Form ASMT-10 to the registered person, and non-issuance of that notice was argued to vitiate the subsequent adjudication. This was supported by reliance on a Gauhati High Court decision and a Madras High Court decision, both cited for the proposition that issuance of the ASMT-10 notice is mandatory wherever scrutiny of returns is undertaken, as well as an Allahabad High Court decision cited for the proposition that scrutiny and audit are necessary preparatory steps before adjudication.

The Additional Government Pleader's countervailing position — that scrutiny, audit, special audit and inspection operate independently of adjudication, and that none of these is a condition precedent to adjudication — was recorded, along with reliance on a Division Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court for that proposition. The order's stated outcome reasoning nonetheless treats the absence of the ASMT-10 notice as fatal to the scrutiny-based proceedings, resulting in relief for the taxpayers.

---

Strategy observations

1. The petitioner in the first writ petition raised the absence of any communication of the show cause notice outside the GST portal as a ground going to awareness and participation in the proceedings.
2. Counsel for the petitioners invoked the rule of consistency, pointing out that for the same taxpayer's returns in a different assessment period, an ASMT-10 notice had in fact been issued for an identical discrepancy — an argument drawn from a Madras High Court precedent on consistency.
3. Reliance was placed on CBIC's Instruction No. 2/2022-GST, which prescribes a standard operating procedure for scrutiny, to argue that the discrepancies flagged fell within the indicative parameters annexed to that instruction — reinforcing that the dispute arose from a scrutiny-type exercise attracting Section 61.
4. Multiple High Court decisions (including from the Gauhati and Allahabad High Courts) were cited for the proposition that the ASMT-10 notice is mandatory wherever scrutiny of returns precedes adjudication, and an analogy was drawn to a Supreme Court income-tax ruling on mandatory notice requirements before an assessing officer repudiates a return.
5. The petitioner in the second writ petition had already replied substantively to the show cause notice on the turnover discrepancy, and the procedural challenge regarding the ASMT-10 notice was raised in addition to, rather than instead of, engagement with the merits of the discrepancy.

---

Why this case matters

The order engages directly with a live question in GST administration: whether the scrutiny mechanism under Section 61, and the Form ASMT-10 notice associated with it under Rule 99, function as a mandatory screening step before a proper officer can proceed to adjudication, or whether scrutiny and adjudication are independent, parallel powers that a tax officer may invoke without a defined sequence. The judgment records competing lines of High Court authority on this question — with several decisions treating ASMT-10 as mandatory, and at least one Division Bench authority treating scrutiny and adjudication as operating "in silos." Given how frequently GST assessments originate from return-scrutiny discrepancies, the resolution of this procedural question has a direct bearing on the validity of a significant category of adjudication orders passed without a preceding ASMT-10 notice.

---

Source

This case is drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals. Original document: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/41883818/