This yearly digest analyzes all the AAR and AAAR stories published in the year 2023 at taxscan.in
The Chhattisgarh Bench of the Authority of Advance Ruling has ruled that hand sanitizers produced for commercial purposes are subject to an 18% GST rate under Entry No. 87 of Schedule III, categorized as “disinfectants and similar products.” This decision is based on Notification 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28 June 2017, and the authority clarified that the applicable GST rate for the commercial production of hand sanitizers is 18%, not 12% as under Entry No. 63 of Schedule II for “medicaments.”
The Chhattisgarh Authority for Advance Ruling has determined that vaccines sold through a separate chemist shop owned by a hospital, across the counter, are subject to GST as a supply of goods at the applicable GST rate. The ruling was made in response to a licensed pediatrician’s query, who administers vaccinations to children in their clinic and argued for an exemption based on the healthcare services category. However, the AAR concluded that the sale of vaccines through a separate chemist shop constitutes a taxable supply attracting GST.
The Chhattisgarh Authority of Advance Ruling has ruled that M/s NMDC cannot claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) on Goods and Services Tax (GST) paid for goods, services, operation, and maintenance services of cross-country pipelines outside their factory premises. The decision states that the applicant is not eligible for an input tax credit on GST paid for items used in the installation of cross-country pipes outside their manufacturing premises. Additionally, the ruling deems the application ineligible for an input tax credit on Central Sales Tax (CST) paid for Operation and Maintenance services related to the upkeep of the mentioned pipeline outside the industrial grounds.
The Advance Authority of Ruling (AAR) in Chhattisgarh determined that work contracts related to the repair, renovation, or improvement of railway tracks are subject to an 18% Goods and Services Tax (GST). This ruling specifically applied to services provided to M/s RITES Ltd. for the renewal or renovation of the railway track from Karonji Station to Bhatgaon Station. As a result, the activities outlined in the works contract services were deemed liable for GST at the rate of 18%.
The Chattisgarh Bench of Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has recently ruled that nil liability of gst from compensation cess is not applicable to coal rejects supplied by power plants. The Authority Bench of Members Sonal K. Mishra and Rajesh Kumar Singh has observed that the GST Notification No. 02/2018-Compensation Cess (Rate) dated 26/07/2018 extending nil liability of compensation cess on coal rejects supplied by a coal washery, will not be applicable to coal rejects supplied by a power plant and further such power plant supplying coal rejects to the applicant is liable to collect compensation cess.
The services on Job works of goods owned by other registered persons attract 12% of Goods and Services Tax (GST) ruled by the Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) of Chhattisgarh. The applicant M/s Miura Infrastructure Private Limited, a registered dealer, engaged in the business of manufacturing of steel fabricated technological Steel Structures/ building structures and machined equipment. The bench of members Sonal K. Mishra and Rajesh Kumar Singh ruled that if the job works services on goods owned by another registered person attract 12 % and if it is an unregistered person, then 18%.
The Chhattisgarh Authority of Advance Ruling ruled that the sale of Biomass Power Plant as a going concern is supply of goods and is liable to Goods and Services Tax (GST). The bench of Sonali K. Mishra and Rajesh Kumar Singh further noted that the applicant appears to have incorrectly claimed eligibility towards exemption from GST under serial no. 2 of Notification no. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) by mischaracterizing the sale of a biomass power plant by way of sale as a going concern as a supply of services when the same is supply of goods by way of transfer as a going concern. Therefore, based on the information provided by the applicant, the authority arrived at the conclusion that the applicant’s current transaction is not covered by Notification No. 12/2017- Central Tax (Rate) 2017 Supply of Goods and is subject to GST at the applicable rate.
The Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) at Karnataka has recently ruled in the application of The transfer of independent part of business pertaining to “LoanFront” app, a mobile software, qualifies to be a transfer of going concern and is exempted from Goods and Services Tax (GST). It was thus observed that, the taking over of liabilities postulates that there will be a continuity of business, as the said part of business is said to be functional and is decided to be transferred as a whole to a new owner, and thus amounts to transfer of a going concern, of the said independent part of the business.” It was hence observed that, the said activity amounts to “Service by way of transfer of going concern as an independent part” and thus in terms of Sl. No. 2 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, as amended.” and ruled that the transfer is entitled to Goods and Services Tax (GST) exemption.
The activity of Custom Milling Paddy is liable to Goods and Services Tax (GST) at the rate of 5% ruled by the Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR), Chhattisgarh. The bench of Sonal K. Mishra and Rajesh Kumar Singh mentioned that, pursuant to notification No. 31/2017-CT(R) [notification No. 11/2017-CT(Rate) dated 28.6.17, S. No. 26 refers], the GST rate on services by way of job work in relation to all food and food products falling under Chapters 1 to 22 has been whittled down from 18% to 5%. It was made abundantly clear that the processing fees for milling paddy into rice on a job-work basis are subject to GST at the rate of 5%. (and not on the entire value of rice).
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that the lower rate of 5% GST applicable to the food items “prepared and cooked” in the restaurant alone whereas, the sale of readily available food items would attract the applicable rates. Accordingly, it was held that “the readily available food items (not prepared/cooked in the restaurant) sold over the counter by the Applicant to the customer whether consumed in the restaurant or by way of takeaway does not qualify as ‘restaurant services’ instead of falls under supply of goods which is liable to applicable rate of GST Tax.”
The bench of Brajesh Kumar Singh and Jyojit Banik of Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR), West Bengal ruled that the supply of services for the right to use car parking space would be taxable @ 18%. The applicant Eden Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. engaged in the business of construction of residential apartments intended for sale to buyers. Based on the applicant, the services of right to use car parking space as a composite supply of services along with the sale of under construction apartment service. The authority observed that the provision of services for the right to use a parking space is a separate supply and should not be perceived as a composite supply of construction of residential apartments. Thus shall be taxable at 18% from the buyers.
The contract for construction of new railway siding would be taxable at 12% ruled by the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR), West Bengal. The applicant Triveni Engicons Pvt. Ltd., engaged in execution of works contract services. The authority highlighted that, the 12% tax rate specified in serial number 3(v) (a) of Notification No. 11/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) has been removed from Notification No. 03/2022 – Central Tax (Rate), dated 13.07.2022. The bench of Brajesh Kumar Singh and Jyojit Banik ruled that the construction of new railway siding would be taxable at 12% till omission of the said entry vide Notification No. 03/2022- Central Tax (Rate) dated 13.07.2022.
In the application of Dom Industries, the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that the supply of sharpeners along with pencils is covered under the category of “mixed supply”. A two-member bench of Amit Kumar Mishra and Milind Kavatkar has observed that a mixed supply containing more than two supplies shall be treated as a supply of that particular supply which attracts a higher rate of tax in the mixed supply. It was viewed that all the supplies of the applicant are covered under the category of Mixed supply hence as per the provision of mixed supply, the supply which attracts a higher rate of tax shall be the applicable rate for the supply.
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that the activity of Afforestation carried out by the applicant as a charitable organization is exempted from GST and is not required to be registered under GST. The Gujarat AAR held that the applicant’s service of plantation of mangroves is covered under point (iv) of Charitable Activity define under clause 2 (r) of Notification No. 12/2017-CT (R) dated 28-6-2017 as amended and is eligible for exemption from payment GST in terms of entry No. 1 of Not. No. 12/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28-6-2017. 18. Further held that the applicant’s service does not cover supply as defined under Section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017, therefore, an applicant is not liable for registration under the provisions of Section 22(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.
The Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR), Chhattisgarh ruled that Services of survey and Detailed Project Report (DPR) for water supply schemes for Panchayat/ Municipalities under Jal Jeevan Mission are pure services eligible for GST Exemption. A Two Member Bench of the Authority comprising Sonal K. Mishra, Joint Commissioner and Rajesh Kumar Singh, Additional Commissioner, observed that “The services of survey and preparation of detailed project report (DPR) for water supply schemes for Panchayats/Municipalities under Jal Jeevan Mission through Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Chhattisgarh provided by the applicant, M/s Aarav Consultancy Services Pvt Ltd. Raipur is eligible for exemption from CST as provided under Sr. 3 of Notification Number 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) New Delhi, being pure services.” The Bench also noted that “No deduction of TDS is warranted in respect of payment received by M/s Aarav Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd, Raipur, the applicant againstabove services rendered by them which are exempted as per principal Notification No. 12/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June, 2017 as amended.”
Upon satisfying the requirements outlined in Sections 16 and 17 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act 2017, the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) of Chhattisgarh determined that the applicant is qualified for an Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the rent bill provided by the service provider who rents them buses charging Goods and Services Tax (GST) at 18%. The authority observed that the applicant is under the misplaced notion that eligibility of Input Tax Credit is governed under the provisions of Notification No.11/2017-CT(Rate) as amended, whereas it is not so, in as much as non- availment of ITC is a pre-condition for availing the benefit of applicable tax rate for the services rendered by the applicant as provided under the said Notification.
The Chhattisgarh Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR), ruled that Civil works for construction of Rail Infrastructure for South Eastern Coal fields (SECL) Kusmunda Project is composite supply and attracts 12% GST. A Two Member Bench of the Authority consisting of Sonal K. Mishra, Joint Commissioner and Rajesh Kumar Singh, Additional Commissioner,observed that “The benefit of entry at Sl.no. of Notification No. 11/2017 would be eligible to M/s Agrawal Buildcon and that the works undertaken by them qualifies as “Composite supply” as stipulated under Section 2 (30) of CGST Act. 2017 as also the said work undertaken satisfies the condition of being ‘Works Contract’ as per Section 2 (119) of the Act, and if so the applicable rate of GST would be at 12% effective from 25.01.2018.”
The Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR), held that no ruling can be given on past and completed supply, thereby ruling against United Breweries Limited, the applicant. The Applicant, engaged in the manufacture of Beer and bottled drinking water had a leasehold land which was leased out to them by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) and was holding this long term leased property, after obtaining necessary approvals, permissions, Commencement certificate from MIDC/NMMC and concerned Authorities, have constructed Industrial structures thereon as per the approved building Plans. The Two Member Bench of the Authority comprising M Rammohan Rao and TR Ramnani, ruled that “Based on the submissions made by the applicant and hearings conducted, the subject application is rejected as being non-maintainable as per Section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017 because the questions raised by the applicant are in respect of past and completed supply as on the date of the application and not supply, which is being undertaken/proposed to be undertaken.”
The Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) Maharashtra, ruled that Pallets, crates leased by CHEP India Private Limited (CHPL), in Maharashtra to other GST Registrations located in India, is lease transaction and taxable as supply of services. CHEP India Private Limited (CIPL), the Applicant has sought and advance ruling on whether the pallets, crates and containers leased by CHEP India Private Limited located and registered in Maharashtra to its other GST registrations located across India would be considered as lease transaction and accordingly taxable as supply of services in terms of Section 7 of the CGST Act and MGST Act. A Two Member Bench of the Authority comprising M Rammohan Rao and T R Ramnani ruled that “Pallets, crates and containers leased by CHEP India located and registered in Maharashtra to its other GST registrations located across India is considered as lease transaction and accordingly taxable as supply of services in terms of Section 7 of the CGST Act and MGST Act.”
The Chhattisgarh Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR), ruled that Supply for providing services for design, engineering, supply etc of Highway Lighting System are installation services and are ineligible for 12% GST. In the instant case, the Applicant has entered into an agreement with M/s. Adani Infra (India) Ltd for providing services for design, engineering, supply, testing at site, freight and transit insurance, erection, installation and commissioning and trial run of the Highway Lighting System. The applicant contended that the work to be executed by the them is regarding the installation of Highway Lighting System and being part and parcel of the project of development, maintenance and management of 4 laning in the State of Chhattisgarh and being essential for completion of road attracts the rate of GST of 12%.
A Two Member Bench of the Authority comprising Sonal K Mishra, Joint Commissioner and Rajesh Kumar Singh, Additional Commissioner observed that “The aforementioned supply to be made by the applicant to AIIL merits classification as “Installation services”, being electrical installation services of illumination for roads. The applicant is found ineligible to the benefit of tax rate of 12% as stipulated under entry No.3 (iv) (a) of Notification No. 1 1/2017 Central Tax (Rate).”
The Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) of West Bengal of members Brajesh Kumar Singh and Jyojit Banik ruled that in the case the transaction of transfer of business by Merger of two registration comes under the ambit of ‘Supply of Services’. The applicant Jayesh Popat, proprietor of M/s. Vasant Jewellers is registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act having GSTIN 19JQPP3457M1ZA. The applicant carries another business under the same trade name as a partner and the said partnership firm is also registered under the GST Act having GSTIN 19AAUFV1123F1Z0. The bench ruled that the transaction of transfer of business of the applicant involved in the instant case shall be treated as a supply of services.
Services of regular medical monitoring with other logistic support as provided by the applicant to senior citizens at their doorstep does not qualified for exemption and liable to Goods and Services Tax at 18% ruled by the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR), West Bengal. The applicant has submitted that it aims to create a community where seniors can lead a physically and emotionally healthy and dignified life. Further, the applicant provided services for accompanying members for essential & social outings, accompanying members to the Bank & Post Office, organising social gathering and entertainment programmes etc. After considering the contentions of the applicant, the bench of Brajesh Kumar Singh and Jyojit Banik concluded that the services provided by the applicant can be termed as ‘human health and social care services’ and is taxable at 18%.
The West Bengal Authority For Advance Ruling (AAR) bench of Brajesh Kumar Singh and Jyojit Banik decided that the welding of railway tracks with labour services will be viewed as a composite supply of services and will be beholden to 18% Goods and Service Tax (GST). The authority observed that the railway tracks, for its permanent characteristic and in absence of mobility like other goods, would be regarded as immovable property and therefore fail to qualify to be goods. The authority highlighted the applicant’s assertion that the supply of labour services they provided along with the supply of job work services should be considered as a composite supply because these supplies are naturally combined in this industry, where the job work supply would be the primary supply and the labour supply would be ancillary.
The Authority of Advance Rulings (AAR) at Karnataka has recently rejected the application of advance ruling filed by M/s Preethi Granite Exports on the ground that no ruling can be given on eligibility of utilization of Input Tax Credit (ITC). It was observed that, “the application is not maintainable as the questions on which advance ruling is sought by the applicant are not covered under the issues specified in Section 97(2) of the CGST Act 2017” the authority bench held that the instant application is liable for rejection in terms of Section 98(2) Of the CGST Act 2017.
In a decision, Chhattisgarh’s Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) determined that the product known as “Waterproof Trellis support for climbing plants utilising bamboo and High-Density Polyethylene” is not exempt from the requirement. The product, described as a “waterproof Trellis support for Climbing plants employing bamboo and High-Density Polyethylene,” was claimed to be an agricultural tool by the applicant, Bhavya Srishti Udyog Private Ltd. The bench of Sonal K. Mishra and Rajesh Kumar Singh noted the classification of the said product comes under Section 11 of chapter 14 of Customs Tariff which covers Vegetable plaiting materials; vegetable products not elsewhere specified or included. Tariff item 14011000 covers “Bamboos” in its ambit and it is taxable under the tariff.
The Chhattisgarh Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) has recently ruled that the construction undertaken by the applicant- , other than construction of railway lines, is not a composite supply to the works contract, thereby attracting 18% Goods and Services Tax (GST). The authority bench of Sonal K Mishra and Rajiv Kumar Agrawal, in addition to the non-adherence of the other aspects/conditions for availing the benefit of notification claimed by the applicant as discussed by the applicant, came to the conclusion that the said construction project being undertaken by the applicant cannot be termed as “pertaining to railways”, much essential for entitlement of the reduced rate of tax
The Chhattisgarh Bench of the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) has recently ruled that 18% Goods and Services Tax rate applicable to 75 Inch Interactive Flat Panel Screens used for Data Processing Purposes manufactured by BENQ. The Authority Bench discussed in depth as to how the product sold by the applicant may be classified and observed that the applicable rate of tax in this regard is 18% GST. It was also ruled that, in case the impugned goods are classifiable under heading other than 8471 owing to its functionality as discussed here in above, the said goods will attract rate of tax as specified in the schedules appended to Notification no. 01/2017- CT(Rate) dated 28.6.2017 on such supplies on the basis of description specified therein, including 28% rate of tax.
The Karnataka Bench of the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) has recently ruled that a ruling can be given only in relation to a proposed or ongoing transaction, rejecting the application filed by M/s Centre for Symbiosis of Technology. The authority observed that, “in the instant case the questions, on which the applicant seeks advance ruling, are not in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the said applicant, but in relation to a completed supply, provided by them. Therefore the instant application is beyond the jurisdiction of this authority and hence is liable for rejection.” The application was thus rejected for being in relation to a completed supply by the authority bench of M P Ravi Prasad and Kiran Reddy T.
The Chhattisgarh Bench of the Authority of Advance Rulings (AAR) recently rejected an application by M/s State Water and Sanitation Mission, Jal Jeevan Mission, on the ground that the recipient of services cannot seek advance ruling on taxability of services. It was observed that the applicant, in the present case, had not been undertaking or has proposed to undertake any supply of goods or services, but is actually the recipient of service. The bench of members Sonal K Mishra and Rajiv Kumar Agrawal ruled that, “The ruling so sought by M/s State Water and Sanitation Mission, the applicant, on the issue of taxability of services provided by the service provider to the applicant cannot be answered owing to it being out of the scope of “advance ruling” as stipulated under Section 95(a) of CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 97(2) of the Act.”
The Authority for Advance Rulings, Karnataka Bench has recently ruled that walltop computer “roombr” is classifiable under the Customs Tariff Heading 8471 41 90. The applicant, Virtulive Technologies sought an advanced ruling regarding the classification of their recently developed product-roombr, a walltop computer. The Authority Bench of Dr. M P Ravi Prasad and Kiran Reddy T observed that the applicant’s product consists of a central processing unit, a Bluetooth keyboard and IR pen to provide interactivity support as an input unit and a projected interactive display as an output unit. Therefore, even on this aspect also the impugned product squarely gets covered under the category of automatic data processing machines under the tariff heading 8471 41.
The Chhattisgarh Authority for Advance Ruling ( AAR ), ruled that installation, Parts and Service of Oxygen Supply System to Hospitals and Homes attract 18% GST. The applicant is a service provider engaged in the activity of supply, installing, testing and commissioning of oxygen pipeline system in the government hospital covid care ward.
Two member bench of the Authority comprising Sonal K Mishra, Joint Commissioner and Rajesh Kumar Singh, Additional Commissioner observed that “Installation services of parts and equipment for supply of Oxygen and other gases used in hospital, homes and connection of other gas operated equipment for Government hospital, attracts 18% GST.”
The Chhattisgarh Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) ruled that no GST can be levied on washed/rejected Coal from washery on which Compensation Cess is paid and Input Tax Credit (ITC) not availed. The applicant is a mine development operator engaged in rendering Mining Services under a Coal Mining and Development executed with Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited which has been allotted a coal block by the Central Government.
A Two Member Bench of the Authority comprising Sonal K Mishra, Joint Commissioner and Rajesh Kumar Singh, Additional Commissioner held that “No GST can be availed on washed/rejected Coal from washery on which Compensation Cess paid, when no ITC is availed”
The Chhattisgarh Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) bench of Sonal K. Mishra and Rajesh Kumar Singh determined that the applicant is obligated to pay 18% Goods and Services Tax (GST) on the manpower services provided to various Central and State Government entities. The bench arrived at the conclusion that, despite being a “pure service,” the applicant’s activity of providing manpower services including technical personnel, data operators, housekeeping services, etc. to various State Government and Central Government Departments does not constitute any sovereign function as defined by Articles 243G or 243W of the Indian Constitution.
According to a ruling by the West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR), of members Brajesh Kumar Singh and Jyojit Banik, the applicant is required to produce a tax invoice on the contract value as established by the department while acting as a “Project Implementing Agency” and supplying the State Government Department/Directorate. The decision-making body noted that the applicant has acknowledged that, as a project executor hired by the administrative department of the Government of West Bengal, he just serves as the “agent” of the said administrative department to carry out the work. We observe that in this context, an agent must also be regarded as the recipient of the supply of products, services, or both as per section 2(93) of GST Act.
The Chhattisgarh Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) ruled that 18% Goods and Services Tax attracted towards the Abhivahan Shulk (Transit Fee) to transit coal from Forest area under Reverse Charge Mechanism RCM). The applicant, Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited (CSPGCL), is an entirely state-owned enterprise that produces electricity and has power facilities spread throughout the state of Chhattisgarh. Coal is the primary raw material used to create electricity. The Ministry of Coal granted a corporation access to a coal mine so that it may extract coal for use in producing electricity. The bench of Sonal K. Mishra and Rajesh Kumar Singh decided that “Abhivahan permission shulk” paid by the applicant to the Forest department for the permission granted by the Forest department of Chhattisgarh, merits classification under the residuary Heading 9997 and the applicant is liable for GST under reverse charge basis in terms of Serial No. 5 of the Notification No. 13/2017- Central Tax (Rate).
While holding that the investment for the purchase of distribution of a film is “intangible right,” the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has disallowed the claim of M/s Nadiadwala Entertainment to treat the expenses incurred on the film “aarakshan” as loss under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A bench of Om Prakash Kant (Accountant Member) and Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member) has held that “the assessee has not incurred expenses for production of the film whereas, the assessee claimed that the said investment was made for purchase of distribution right of the film which are in the nature of intangible assets and therefore investment was for purchase of capital asset and loss incurred on the same is in the nature on opinion, finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue reasoned and no interference is required in the same.”
The bench of Sonal K. Mishra and Rajesh Kumar Singh of Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR), Chhattisgarh ruled that 2% Tax Deduction Source (TDS) is applicable on Contract value above Rs. 2,50,000 on payment to Customs millers. The applicant Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation (MARKFED) sought the advance ruling on TDS on Goods and Services Tax (GST) applicability on the payments made to custom miller. The bench mentioned that Section 51 of the Central Goods and Services Act (CGST), 2017, allows a department or establishment of the Central Government or State Government; a local authority; a Governmental agency; or such persons or categories of persons as may be notified by the Government on the advice of the Council, (the “deductor”), to deduct tax at the rate of one percent from the payment made or credited to the supplier (“deductee”) of taxable goods or services.
The Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) of Chhattisgarh ruled that the exporter is eligible for recovery of unused Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Goods and Services Tax (GST) under Reverse Charge Mechanism on transportation costs to the Goods Transportation Agency. The applicant registered as an exporter under GST Act and engaged in exporting molasses to Bangladesh under Letter of Undertaking (LUT) without payment of GST. Further, they purchased the same from the registered tax payers of Haryana and Punjab after payment of 0.1% GST on the goods.
The bench of Sonal K. Mishra and Rajesh Kumar Singh held that the applicant is eligible for a refund of unused input tax credits of such GST paid under transportation charges paid under Reverse Charge on transportation charges paid to a GTA in India for the export purpose and GST paid on other ancillary services for the export purpose from registered service providers of India. This decision was made in light of section 54 of the CGST act read with section 16(3)(a) of the IGST act.
The Tamil Nadu Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) held that the applicant, VBC Associates is not eligible for claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC), as per Section 17 (2) of the CGST /TNGST Act read with Rule 43(a) of CGST /TNGST Rules 2017, on the Goods/Services used in installation of Solar Power Panels, which are considered as Plant and Machinery. The applicant is a Partnership Firm in the business of maintenance of an immovable property and provides the services of maintenance of immovable property, covered under the main SAC 9972. The applicant, on a monthly basis, raises an invoice for ‘EB and DG charges’, to the tenants. The Two member bench of the Authority comprising TG Venkatesh and K Latha observed that goods/ Services for installation of Solar Power Panel are Plant and Machinery, ineligible for ITC.
The Bangalore Appellate Advance Ruling Authority bench of Ranjana Jha and Shikha C determined that no Goods and Service Tax exemption would be available to supply of parts and accessories of hearing aid.The bench arrived at the conclusion that under the subheading 902140 of the heading 9021 of the Custom Tariff Act the hearing aids excluding the parts and accessories were exempted from GST and the bench dismissed the appeal on all grounds.
The Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) bench of Rama Mohan Rao and TR Ram Nani of Ruled that the supply of garbage tipper vehicles by TATA Motor Vehicle would attract 28% of Goods and Service Tax.
The decision making authority note that that the vehicle manufactured by the applicant could not be termed as the special purpose vehicle and the certificate issued by the applicant itself had mentioned the vehicle as a good carrier.
The Uttar Pradesh Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) bench of Rajendra Kumar (Additional Commissioner CGST) and Vivek Arya (Joint Commissioner SGST) ruled that the services provided to State Urban Development Agency (SUDA) and for Project Management Consultancy (PMAY) in relation to functions entrusted under Article 243w and 243G of the constitution would be qualified as pure services.
The authority conclude that State Urban Development Agency (SUDA) and PMAY which had been established as the state level nodal agency under urban employment and poverty alleviation program could be treated as an activity under Article 243M and 243G of the constitution.
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) bench of Amit Kumar Mishra and Milind Kavatkar ruled that 12 percentage GST would be applicable on the potato products like salted and flavoured potato chips, mixture, sev mamara etc.The Authority observed that the supply of potato products like salted and flavoured Potato Chips, Potato Sev, Potato Chivda, etc. were pre- packaged and labelled hence would not be eligible for GST @5% as per entry No. 10lA of Not. No. l/2017-CT.
The Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) Maharashtra bench comprising M. Rammohan Rao and T.R. Ramnani decide that Input Tax Credit (ITC) is not available on goods and services consumed for the construction of a pipeline which was laid outside the factory premises. The authority further observed that pipelines laid outside factory premises are not covered within the term ‘plant and machinery’ as per Explanation to Section 17(5)(c) and 17(5)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”), and therefore the inputs used for construction of such pipeline outside the factory are not eligible to Input Tax Credit (“ITC”)
Bench of Ranjana Jha and Ms. Shikha C of the Karnataka Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR) quashed an advance ruling against online apparel platform Myntra wherein the AAR held that 18% GST leviable on the sale of internet advertisement space.They observed that that the services provided by them qualifies in all respects as an ‘export of service’. There is no disagreement with the findings of the Advance Ruling Authority that they meet the conditions in clauses (i), (ii), (iv) and (v) of Section 2(6) of the IGST Act which defines ‘export of service’; that they also meet condition (iii) of the definition in as much as the place of supply is outside India and they justified this by relying on Section 13(2) of the IGST Act which they claim is applicable in their case. He submitted that no other sub-section in Section13 applies to them.
The Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) bench of M. Rammohan Rao and T.R. Ramanani ruled that the Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST) would be applied to transfer of monetary proceeds by IVL India under the reverse charge mechanism.The authority further determined that the applicant had received support services from IVL Sweden, which was located in a non-taxable territory, the entire integrated tax leviable under Section 5 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act should be paid on the reverse charge basis by the applicant for such services.
The West Bengal Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) bench of Brajesh Kumar Singh and JoyjitBanik decided that sub -contractor activities of shifting electrical utilities for construction of NH 34 project cannot be regarded as composite supply of work.Further they observed that The activities being carried out by the applicant as a subcontractor for shifting of electrical utilities for construction of Proposed 4-Laning of Barasat – Krishnagar Section of NH-34 Project cannot be regarded as composite supply of works contract by way of construction of road as specified under serial number 3(iv)(a) of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate).
The Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) bench of Dr M. P. Ravi Prasad and Sri. Kiran Reddy T ruled that they can’t rule on the utilization of ITC available in the Electronic Credit Ledger under the provision of Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST), 2017.The authority observed that the issue of utilization of ITC is available in the Electronic Credit Ledger and the question is not covered under the issues specified in Section 97(2) of the CGST Act 2017. The third question is about the utilization of the amount available in their Electronic Cash Ledger towards discharge of GST liability on rental/lease income, which is not covered under the issues specified in Section 97(2) of the CGST Act 2017.
The Authority of Advance Ruling ( AAR ) bench of Milind Kavatkar and Amit Kumar Mishra has ruled that, 12% Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) applicable on Geomembrane and is classified under HSN 5911. The AAR further ruled that the product comes under tariff item 59111000.The bench ascertained that the contested goods, Geomembranes, have purely technical uses because they are used in aquaculture ponds along with Biofloc technology, a bacterial colony- based culture that is highly beneficial in preventing disease and creating an ecologically sustainable symbiotic system.
The Andhra Pradesh Authority for Advance Ruling bench of D. Ramesh, the Commissioner of State Tax and Sri. RV Pradhamesh Bhanu, the Joint Commissioner of Central Tax ruled that the scanning and processing of exam results are exempted from GST. The aforesaid ruling was made by the Authority of Advance Ruling when an application was filed before it by M/s. Universal Print Systems,the authorit observed that With reference to the services provided by the applicant, they are nothing but services relating to admission to, or conduct of examination by, such institution, falling under Sl No 66 of the said exemption notification of No. 12/2017-CGST [Rate], dated 28.06.2017 as amended.”
The Andhra Pradesh Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) bench consisting D. Ramesh, the Commissioner of State Tax and Sri. RV Pradhamesh Bhanu, the Joint Commissioner of Central Tax. has recently, in an application filed before it, ruled that the printing of mark cards, grade cards and certificates is exempted from GST.The aforesaid ruling was made by the Authority of Advance Ruling when an application was filed before it by M/s. Universal Print Systems, the applicant, who is engaged in the business of printing including high-end security printing products from the year 2011.
The bench of Sri B. Raghu Kiran, IRS, Additional Commissioner (Central Tax) and Sri S.V. Kasi Visweswara Rao, Additional Commissioner (State Tax)Telangana State Authority for Advance Ruling has ruled that the supply of telecommunication services to the local authority, is taxable under GST. The authority determined that “The applicant is providing data and voice services to GHMC and to the employees of the municipalities and there is no direct relation between the services provided by the applicant and the functions discharged by the GHMC under Article 243W read with schedule 12 to the Constitution of India. Therefore, these services do not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 12/2017, and for the reasons mentioned above, the supply of telecommunication services to local authority is a taxable service”.
The Maharashtra Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR) bench consisting D.K. Srinivas and Rajiv Kumar Mittal has ruled that project management consulting services will fall under the head of “Other technical and scientific services nowhere else classified” and attracts 18% GST. The authority observed that the activities, which merit classification under SAC 998621, are like physical performance or activities which are being directly used in the mining and extraction operations whereas the services provided by the Appellant are not so as the said services are like review, monitoring, management and supervision of the project works which are done towards the realization of mining activities.
Andhra Pradesh Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) bench of re D. Ramesh (Commissioner of State Tax ) and RV Prathamesh Bhanuuled (Joint commissioner of central Tax) recently held that Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited liable to pay Goods and Service Tax on interest received on annual installment .further bench observed that Andhra Pradesh Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) bench of re D. Ramesh (Commissioner of State Tax) and RV Prathamesh Bhanuuled (Joint commissioner of central Tax) recently held that Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited liable to pay Goods and Service Tax on interest received on annual installment. Further the bench observed that APIIC had given a facility to the beneficiaries, by extending the service of fixation of annual installments with an interest at 160% per annual for delayed payment of 75% of total consideration over a period of time, In such a case, the interest on the credit facility allowed by the applicant is part of the value of taxable supply and shall be liable to GST.
The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR) bench of D.K. Srinivas, and Rajeev Kumar Mital have ruled that Goods and Service Tax shall not be payable under Reverse Charge Mechanism on procurement of renting of immovable property services from Special Economic Zones (SEZ)The authority set aside the ruling of AAAR and observed that the Appellant were not required to pay GST under RCM on the impugned services of renting of immovable property services received from SEEPZ SEZ for carrying out the authorized operation in SEZ subject to furnishing of LUT or bond as a deemed supplier of such services and that the Appellant were not required to pay GST under RCM on any other services received from the suppliers located in DTA for carrying out the authorized operation in SEZ subject to furnishing of LUT or bond as a deemed supplier of such services
Telangana Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling(AAAR) bench of Neethu Prasad , and B. V. Sivanaga Kumari,recently held that the Applicant is obliged to pay GST on the forest permit fee paid by it under reverse charge mechanism and it would attract 18% Goods and service tax.the authority observed that the supply was to be classified as Public Administrative Services falling under Entry 29 of Notification No: 11/2017 Dated 28-06- 2017, which is taxable at 18%, for the entire period.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
