https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94845 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. en-us Mon, 08 Dec 2025 08:31:21 +0530 Mon, 08 Dec 2025 08:31:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94845 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. Highlights GST Mon, 08 Dec 2025 08:31:21 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94845