TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 546
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g machine with parts and Accessories 5% 11096106.51 915428.8 12011535.31 600576.77 2 Full Automatic mold cleaning machine with parts & Accessories 5% 8193703.5 975980.6 886984.1 443484.2 3 1.523 Ophthalmic rough banks Glass 12% 3560370.54 195820.4 3756190.94 450742.91 3. On 05.04.2024, they got a pre-consultation letter from the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Port), Custom House, Kolkata, under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, stating that IGST @ 18% would be leviable on the goods of CTH 8437 i.e. mentioned at Sr. No. 1 and 2 supra, as per the calculation below: - Item Name GST Leviable GST Levied Differential to be paid Full Automatic Hardening Cleaning machine with parts and Accessories 18% Rs. 21,62,076/- 5% Rs. 6,00,577 13% Rs. 15,61,499 Full Automatic mould cleaning machine with parts & Accessories 18% Rs. 15,96,543/- 5% Rs. 4,43,484 13% Rs. 11,53,060 Total Rs. 37,58,619 Rs. 10,44,061 Rs. 27,14,559 4. The applicant paid the differential duty of Rs. 27,14,559/- along with applicable interest of Rs. 6,50,601/- on 10.05.2024 through ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d). (vii) The Customs Authorities on the submission of challan and working appropriated the payment towards the Customs dues which itself substantiates that those documents are accepted under the Customs law by the authorities. Hence, the same should be acceptable by the GST authorities. 7. Personal hearing was granted on 16.10.2025 wherein Shri Chintan Kansara, Advocate appeared for the Applicant and Shri Anil Verma, STO-5, Unit-43, SGST, Vadodara appeared for the Department. Shri Kansara, reiterated the submissions made by the applicant. Shri Anil Verma submitted that since the time limit prescribed in Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 is over, the applicant is not eligible for availing the ITC credit. He further submitted that such payment is also not reflected in the GSTR-2B of the applicant. Discussion and findings 8. At the outset, we would like to state that the provisions of both the CGST Act and the GGST Act are the same, except for certain provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the CGST Act would also mean a reference to the same provisions under the GGST Act. 9. We have considered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plicable interest of Rs. 6,50,601/- on 10.05.2024 and informed the same to the Customs Authorities on 14.05.2024. Consequently, a closure letter dtd. 13.09.2024 was issued by the Customs to the applicant. 13. The applicant is before us seeking a ruling as to whether they are eligible to avail the ITC of the differential duty of IGST of Rs. 27,14,559/-, which has been paid by them on the basis of the Pre-consultation letter dtd. 05.04.2024, issued under the proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 in terms of the time line prescribed in Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. We find that though the applicant has framed a single question, the question asked by the applicant has to be bifurcated into two parts namely- (i) whether they are eligible to avail the ITC of the differential duty of IGST paid on the basis of the Pre-consultation letter, and (ii) whether it would be hit by the time limit prescribed in Section 16(4) of the CGST Act. This bifurcation, according to us, is important because we have to first decide whether the applicant is eligible to avail the ITC on the basis of the pre-consultation letter. Only after this is decided, we can move on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o not subscribe to this view of the applicant. The similar document mentioned in Rule 36(1)(d) must be read ejusdem generis with the preceding word 'bill of entry'. The similar document that the legislature intended is the Courier Bill of entry and other Declarations/Forms prescribed under the Customs Act, 1962 or rules made thereunder. It cannot be stretched to include a Pre-consultation letter, which is issued prior to issuance of a show cause notice. Similarly, the document evidencing payment of tax such as a challan would also not come within the ambit of a similar document. 16. We find that subsequent to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI and Others Vs Cosmo Films Ltd., the Board had issued Circular No. 16/2023-Customs dtd. 07.06.2023 for the purpose of carrying forward the Supreme Court's directions. The relevant paragraphs of the Circular are reproduced below:- "5.1 The matter has been examined in the Board for purpose of carrying forward the Hon'ble Supreme Court's directions. It is noted that - (a) ICES does not have a functionality for payment of customs duties on a bill of entry (BE) (unless it has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proach the Customs Authorities for re-assessment of the Bill of Entry, which would then transmit the same electronically to GSTN and subsequently get reflected in the applicant's GSTR 2B. 17. Therefore, in view of the above, a pre-consultation letter or a duty paying documents such as a TR-6 challan is not a proper document under Section 16(2) of the Act or under Rule 36 (1) of the Rules, ibid. Which brings us to the next issue i.e. whether such taking of ITC would be hit by the time limit prescribed in Section 16(4) of the CGST Act. As we have already held that ITC cannot be availed on the basis of a pre-consultation letter or a duty paying documents such a TR-6 challan, we do not deem it necessary to answer the corollary to this issue i.e. whether taking of ITC on the basis of a pre-consultation letter or a duty paying documents such a TR-6 challan would be hit by the time limit prescribed in Section 16(4) of the CGST Act. We also find support in our view in Re: Mitsubishi Electric India Pvt. Ltd [(2024) 16 Centax 192 (A.A.R. - GST - T.N.)], wherein the Advance Ruling Authority while dealing with the ITC of IGST paid as a part of differential Customs duty for imports, had ....