This round-up analytically summarises the key stories related to the Goods and Services Tax Authority for Advance Ruling ( AAR ) and Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling ( AAAR ) reported at Taxscan.in during the period from March 16 to April 20, 2024.
The Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Authority for Advance Ruling ( AAR ), Karnataka Bench ruled that the applicant’s activities being predominantly outside the purview of agricultural extension support, was not covered under the Notification 11/2017-Central Tax and that the same was not exempt from the levy of Goods and Services Tax Act.
It was thus ruled that, “the worker or activities undertaken by the appellant as per agreement viz., project during doesn’t fall under the support services to agriculture under SI.No.24 of Heading 9986 of Notification No.11/2017-Central Tax ( Rate ), dated 28th June, 2017.” It was also ruled that, “when it comes to taxes, the main argument is whether the appellant should get an exemption vide notification No. 11/2017, CGST [rates], specifically under serial No. 24. In view of findings given above, doesn’t qualify for the exemption. This decision is strengthened by the fact that for the reason their activities doesn’t match the definition of services in the support services 9986 category.”
The Andhra Pradesh Authority for Advance Ruling has ruled that commissioning agents/brokers dealing in the brokerage of agricultural products are liable to be registered under Goods and Services Tax ( GST ).
It was also noted that, “in the instant case the applicant is involved in the processing of the products and also facilitates the transactions between buyer and seller and collects brokerage charges.” Therefore the applicant is required to obtain registration as well has to pay CGST @9% and SGST @9% as per notification 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 given below, irrespective of whether the goods involved in the transaction are exempted or taxable under GST. Thus, the Question “Since we are dealing in brokerage of agricultural produce which is exempt, are we liable for GST Registration?” was answered “Yes” by the authority.
The Andhra Pradesh Authority for Advance Ruling ( AAR ) has ruled that the Mangala Borosan and Mangala G1 are classifiable under 2833 29 90 attracted 18% Goods and Services Tax ( GST ).
In summary, the product’s placement under Tariff Item 28332990 is substantiated by its composition, notably its sulphate content, as elucidated in relevant literature. By recognizing the absence of micronutrient blends and the prevalence of inorganic chemicals, particularly sulphates, this classification provides a nuanced understanding of the product’s nature and facilitates adherence to regulatory standards. Thus, the AAR bench of B. Laxmi Narayan (Central Tax) and K. Ravi Sankar ( State Tax ) ruled that the products Mangala Borosan and Mangala G1 are classifiable under 2833 29 90 (under schedule 3) attracting 18% GST and not under Chapter heading 3105 as fertilisers.
In a recent ruling, the Andhra Pradesh Authority for Advance Ruling ( AAR ) has ruled that the crackle manufactured by the applicant with Sugar, Cashews, Butter, Liquid glucose and other permitted flavours should not be classified under ‘Sugar Boiled Confectionery’ for 12% Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) as the products were used as industrial inputs.
Hence, the AAR bench ruled that the product by name “Crackle”, manufactured and supplied by the applicant containing the ingredients Sugar, Cashew Nuts, Butter, Liquid glucose and other permitted Flavours, should not be classified under the Tariff Heading 1704 enumerated at Serial number 32AA of Schedule III of Notification No. 01/2017 as a Sugar boiled confectionery.
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling ( AAR ) clarified that GST is not applicable on the amount recovered from permanent employees for canteen facilities.
The Gujarat Authority Bench of CGST Member Amit Kumar Mishra and State GST Member Riddesh Raval ruled that the company can claim ITC only on expenses related to permanent employees, not on those related to temporary or deputed workers. In conclusion, the applicant was ruled to be exempt from GST on canteen charges for permanent employees and can claim ITC accordingly. However, it was added that they must pay GST for similar services provided to temporary workers and others, without eligibility for ITC on those expenses. Additionally, ITC cannot be claimed on inputs like equipment and kitchen utensils.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
