Tax authority's substitution of projected figures with actuals overturned; original acquisition valuation upheld; transfer pricing issues remitted for...
Beneficial owner held liable for differential customs duty; royalties added under Rule 10(1)(c); confiscation, penalties under s.111(m), s.114A, s.112...
AAR rejected the applicant's claim to avail ITC of IGST paid pursuant to a pre-notice consultation letter under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act. It held that neither the pre-consultation letter nor the duty-paying TR-6 challan qualifies as a valid tax invoice or similar document under Section 16(2) of the CGST Act or Rule 36(1)(d) of the CGST Rules. Interpreting "any similar document" ejusdem generis with "bill of entry," the AAR confined it to documents like courier bills of entry or prescribed customs declarations, excluding pre-consultation letters and challans. Consequently, ITC of Rs. 27,14,559/- was denied, and the question of limitation under Section 16(4) was left unanswered.
AAR rejected the applicant's claim to avail ITC of IGST paid pursuant to a pre-notice consultation letter under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act. It held that neither the pre-consultation letter nor the duty-paying TR-6 challan qualifies as a valid tax invoice or similar document under Section 16(2) of the CGST Act or Rule 36(1)(d) of the CGST Rules. Interpreting "any similar document" ejusdem generis with "bill of entry," the AAR confined it to documents like courier bills of entry or prescribed customs declarations, excluding pre-consultation letters and challans. Consequently, ITC of Rs. 27,14,559/- was denied, and the question of limitation under Section 16(4) was left unanswered.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
