https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762817 The AAR, Andhra Pradesh ruled that the applicant could not claim Input Tax Credit on IGST paid for imported machinery. The machinery was imported by a foreign supplier for display at an exhibition in Bangalore, with the Bill of Entry issued in the supplier's name, not the applicant's. The goods were cleared under customs exemption notification without duty payment. The court held that essential documentary requirements under Section 16 of CGST Act read with Rule 36 were not met, as the Bill of Entry was not in the applicant's name. The manual TR-6 challan used for IGST payment did not satisfy documentation requirements for ITC claims, making the applicant ineligible. en-us Thu, 28 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Jun 2025 20:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762817 The AAR, Andhra Pradesh ruled that the applicant could not claim Input Tax Credit on IGST paid for imported machinery. The machinery was imported by a foreign supplier for display at an exhibition in Bangalore, with the Bill of Entry issued in the supplier's name, not the applicant's. The goods were cleared under customs exemption notification without duty payment. The court held that essential documentary requirements under Section 16 of CGST Act read with Rule 36 were not met, as the Bill of Entry was not in the applicant's name. The manual TR-6 challan used for IGST payment did not satisfy documentation requirements for ITC claims, making the applicant ineligible. Case-Laws GST Thu, 28 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762817