https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783006 AAR (Gujarat) held that the applicant is not entitled to ITC of IGST paid pursuant to a pre-notice consultation letter issued under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act. It ruled that neither the pre-consultation letter nor the TR-6 challan evidencing payment of tax qualifies as a valid duty-paying document under Section 16(2) of the CGST Act or Rule 36(1)(d) of the CGST Rules. The expression "any similar document" must be read ejusdem generis with "bill of entry" and covers only documents like courier bills of entry and prescribed declarations, not pre-consultation letters or challans. Consequently, the AAR declined to examine Section 16(4) time-bar issues. en-us Mon, 24 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Dec 2025 08:31:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783006 AAR (Gujarat) held that the applicant is not entitled to ITC of IGST paid pursuant to a pre-notice consultation letter issued under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act. It ruled that neither the pre-consultation letter nor the TR-6 challan evidencing payment of tax qualifies as a valid duty-paying document under Section 16(2) of the CGST Act or Rule 36(1)(d) of the CGST Rules. The expression "any similar document" must be read ejusdem generis with "bill of entry" and covers only documents like courier bills of entry and prescribed declarations, not pre-consultation letters or challans. Consequently, the AAR declined to examine Section 16(4) time-bar issues. Case-Laws GST Mon, 24 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783006