S.No State/UT GW-year-State Appeal Order No.& Date Name of Applicant Brief of Order-in-Appeal (OIA) AAR Order No. & Date, against which Appeal has been filed View
1 Maharashtra AAAR-GW-20-2022-MH 01-April-2022, MAH/AAAR/AM-RM/04/2022-23 1. M/s. Meerabai Borade

The Maharashtra Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling order in case of M/s. Meerabai Borade.

101 View
2 Maharashtra AAAR-GW-19-2022-MH 01-April-2022, MAH/AAAR/AM-RM/01/2022-23 1. M/s. Nagpur Waste Water Management Pvt. Ltd.

The Maharashtra Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling order in case of M/s. Nagpur Waste Water Management Pvt. Ltd.

101 View
3 Maharashtra AAAR-GW-18-2022-MH 01-April-2022, MAH/AAAR/AM-RM/03/2022-23 1. M/s. Tukaram Borade

The Maharashtra Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling order in case of M/s. Tukaram Borade

101 View
4 Maharashtra AAAR-GW-17-2022-MH 01-April-2022, MAH/AAAR/AM-RM/02/2022-23 1. M/s. Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited

The Maharashtra Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling order in case of M/s. Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited

101 View
5 Maharashtra AAAR-GW-16-2022-MH 01-April-2022, MAH/AAAR/AM-RM/05/2022-23 1. M/s. Shital Borade

The Maharashtra Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling order in case of M/s. Shital Borade

101 View
6 Tamil Nadu AAAR-GW-31-2022-TN 23-March-2022, AAAR/08/2022(AR) 1. Tamil Nadu Skill Development Corporation

The Appeal is Dismissed as there is no reason to interfere with the original Ruling.

99 View
7 Uttrakhand AAAR-GW-157-2022-UK 10-March-2022, UK/AAAR/03/2021-22 1. M/s Corbett Nature Reserve

Uttarakhand Appellate Authority on Advance Ruling upheld the order passed by Authority for Advance Ruling.

UK-AAR-05/2021-22 dated 08.10.2021 View
8 Tamil Nadu AAAR-GW-30-2022-TN 09-March-2022, AAAR/07/2022(AR) 1. Rasi Nutri Foods

The appeal is permitted to be withdrawn and no ruling is extended

99 View
9 Tamil Nadu AAAR-GW-29-2022-TN 07-March-2022, AAAR/06/2022(AR) 1. SHV Energy Private Limited

1. In respect of Q.No.1, the subject appeal is disposed as there is no reason to interfere with the Order of Advance Ruling Authority2. In respect of Q.No.2 and 3, as there is difference of opinion between the members, no ruling is offered as per Section 101(3) of the CGST/TNGST Act 2017.

99 View
10 Karnataka AAAR-GW-38-2022-KT 04-March-2022, KAR/AAAR/02/2022 1. Time Technoplast Ltd.

We uphold the order No. KAR ADRG 54/2021 dated 29/10/2021 passed by the advance ruling authority and the appeal filed by the Appellant M/s. Time Technoplast Ltd, stands dismissed on all accounts.

99 View
11 Karnataka AAAR-GW-37-2022-KT 04-March-2022, KAR/AAAR/01/2022 1. Workplace Options India Pvt Ltd.

We uphold the order No. KAR ADRG 52/2021 dated 29/10/2021 passed by the Advance Ruling Authority and the appeal filed by the Appellant M/s. Workplace Options India Pvt Ltd, stands dismissed on all accounts.

99 View
12 Rajasthan AAAR-GW-144-2022-RJ 25-February-2022, RAJ/AAAR/06/2021-22 1. M/s Shri Vinayak Buildcon

It was held that AAR has rightly rejected the application seeking advance ruling as the question posted by the appellant is related to supplies undertaken by them prior to the date of filing of the application.

RAJ/AAR/2021-22/24 View
13 Gujarat AAAR-GW-50-2022-GJ 24-February-2022, GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2022/05 1. Surat Municipal Corporation

Advance Ruling No. and Date : GUJ/GAAR/ADM/2020/120 dated 30.12.2020

Questions before the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling [‘GAAR’], Goods and Service Tax:

Question: Whether the Supply made by M/s INI Studio would qualify for exemption under Entry No. 3 of the Notification No. 12/2017-CT as “Service” in relation to any functions entrusted to a municipality under article 243W of the Constitution as a “Pure Service” having no element of goods so as to construe it as “Works Contract” as defined under Section 2(119) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017??

Answer: Instant application filed by M/s Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC), Muglisara, Surat is hereby rejected under Section 98(2) of the CGST/GGST Act, 2017 being non-maintainable in view of the above discussion.

AAAR Gujarat- The main issue is to decide "Whether the GAAR was right in rejecting appellant’s application under the provisions of Section 98 (2) of the CGST/GGST Act, 2017 as being non-maintainable."

Held - We find that the present appeal is non-maintainable as per the provisions of CGST Act. In view of the foregoing, we confirm the Advance Ruling Admission Order No. GUJ/GAAR/ADN/2020/120 dated 30.12.2020 of the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of M/s. Surat Municipal Corporation.

GUJ/GAAR/ADM/2020/120 dated 30.12.2020 View
14 Gujarat AAAR-GW-45-2022-GJ 24-February-2022, GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2022/04 1. Shree Arbuda Transport

Advance Ruling No. and Date : GUJ/GAAR/R/82/2020 dated 17.09.2020

Questions before the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling [‘GAAR’], Goods and Service Tax:

(1) If we want to provide all above services for a “Single consolidated Rate” as a package, whether such supply would be treated as “Mixed supply” as per the provisions of Section 2(74) of the CGST Act, 2017, since the services are not naturally bundled and are capable of being provided independently? Or it shall be treated as “Composite supply”?

(2) What shall be the applicable HSN code and corresponding GST Rate for such bundle of services? (Highest Rate of Service in the bundle is 18%).

(3) Whether the firm shall be eligible to avail ITC on the following: - Regarding GST paid on Commercial vehicles and Repair & maintenance cost of such vehicles used for transportation of goods/containers. - ITC on inward supply from CFS/Port/Labour contractor etc. related to such packaged outward supply.

(4) Whether the Exporter client shall be eligible to claim refund of the GST paid by on our (appellant’s) outward supply invoices?

The GAAR has given answer to all the four questions as under:

“Answer: In view of non-submission of copies of agreement or any other relevant documents with regard to the services to be supplied/provided by the applicant, no decision can be taken in the matter for the reasons discussed hereinabove.”

AAAR Gujarat - We do not agree with the views of Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling to the effect that Ruling cannot be provided in absence of signed Agreement. The very purpose for creating the Authority for Advance Ruling is to help the applicant in planning his activities and bringing in certainty in determining tax liabilities. So, there is nothing wrong if any the applicant seeks Advance Ruling by describing his activities in detail before signing an Agreement. It is open for the Advance Ruling Authority to seek more details, clarification or supporting documents from the applicant.

Held : We allow the appeal filed by M/s. Shree Arbuda Transport, Gandhidham, by modifying the Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/82/2020 dated 17.09.2020 passed by the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling as under:

Question 1: If we want to provide all above services for a “Single consolidated Rate” as a package, whether such supply would be treated as “Mixed supply” as per the provisions of Section 2(74) of the CGST Act, 2017, since the services are not naturally bundled and are capable of being provided independently? Or it shall be treated as “Composite supply”?

Answer: Such supply would be treated as ‘mixed supply’ as per the provisions of Section 2(74) of the CGST Act, 2017.

Question 2: What shall be the applicable HSN code and corresponding GST Rate for such bundle of services? (Highest Rate of Service in the bundle is 18%).

Answer: The applicable HSN / Service Code (Tariff) would be 996719 and corresponding GST Rate for such ‘mixed supply’ would be the highest rate of the constituent supplies, which is presently 18%.

Question 3: Whether the firm shall be eligible to avail ITC on the following: - Regarding GST paid on Commercial vehicles and Repair & maintenance cost of such vehicles used for transportation of goods/containers. - ITC on inward supply from CFS/Port/Labour contractor etc. related to such packaged outward supply.

Answer: Input Tax Credit on inputs, input services and capital goods cannot be denied merely on the ground that one of the constituent service of the mixed supply attracts Nil rate of tax if provided separately.

Question 4: Whether the Exporter client shall be eligible to claim refund of the GST paid on our (appellant’s) outward supply invoices?”

Answer: This question can be answered at the end of exporter. The appellant is not entitled to raise this question.

 

 

GUJ/GAAR/R/82/2020 dated 17.09.2020 View
15 Tamil Nadu AAAR-GW-66-2022-TN 23-February-2022, TN/AAAR/04/2022(AR) 1. M/s GRB Dairy Foods Pvt. Ltd

Advance Ruling No. and Date : Tamilnadu Order No. 36/ARA/2021 dated 30.09.2021

Questions before the Tamilnadu Authority for Advance Ruling [‘TNAAR’], Goods and Service Tax:

Whether the GST paid on inputs/input services procured by the appellant to implement the promotional scheme under the name 'Buy n Fly is eligible for Input Tax Credit under the GST law in terms of Section 16 read with Section 17 of the CGST Act, 2017 and TNGST Act, 2017?

Answer : The GST paid on inputs/input services procured by the appellant to implement the promotional scheme under the name 'Buy n Fly' is not eligible for Input Tax Credit under the GST law in terms of Section 17(5)(g) and (h) of the CGST Act, 2017 and TNGST Act, 2017.

AAAR Tamilnadu : We hold that the input tax credit on the inputs and input services involved in the goods and services used for the purpose of reward is not available for the appellant and accordingly the ruling given by the Advance Ruling Authority of Tamil Nadu requires no intervention and the appeal is dismissed.

Held : We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Advance Ruling Authority in this matter. The subject appeal is disposed of accordingly.

36/ARA/2021 DATED 30.09.2021 View
16 Tamil Nadu AAAR-GW-65-2022-TN 23-February-2022, TN/AAAR/05/2022(AR) 1. M/s PSK Engineering Construction & Co.

Advance Ruling No. and Date : Tamilnadu Order No. 8/ARA/2021 dated 25.03.2021

Questions before the Tamilnadu Authority for Advance Ruling [‘TNAAR’], Goods and Service Tax:

1. What is the rate of GST to be charged on providing works contract services to TANGEDCO for carrying out retrofitting work for strengthening the NPKRR Maaligai against seismic and wind effect and modification of elevation in TNEB headquarters building at Chennai.

2. Whether the entry in Sl.No.3 item (vi) of the Notification no. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended is applicable to the appellant in instant case.

The Original Authority has ruled as under:-

1. The rate of GST to be charged on the services provided by the applicant to TANGEDCO for carrying out retrofitting work for strengthening the NPKRR Maaligai against seismic and wind effect and modification of elevation in TNEB headquarters building at Chennai is 18% ((9%CGST + 9% SGST) as per SL.No.3(xii) of Notification 11/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended.

2. The entry in SI.No.3 item (vi) of the notification 11/2017 -Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended is not applicable to the applicant in the instant case for the reasons discussed in Para 8 of the ARA order.

AAAR Tamilnadu: The condition imposed for availing the concessional rate at the said entry is unambiguous in as much as it says that the services should have been procured by the Government entity, in relation to a work entrusted to it and the strengthening of the Headquarters building of TANGEDCO is definitely not an activity ‘in relation to’ Generation and Distribution of Electricity’, the work entrusted to it. Therefore, the contentions of the appellant in this regard are rejected.

Held : We do not find any reason to interfere with the Order of the Advance Ruling Authority in this matter. The subject appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Order No. 08/ARA/2021 DATED View
17 Uttrakhand AAAR-GW-158-2022-UK 18-February-2022, UK/AAAR/02/2021-22 1. M/s WindlasBiotec Ltd.

Uttarakhand Appellate Authority on Advance Ruling upheld the order passed by Authority for Advance Ruling.

UK-AAR-04/2021-22 dated 02.09.2021 View
18 Gujarat AAAR-GW-49-2022-GJ 17-February-2022, GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2022/03 1. M/s. Oswal Industries Limited

Advance Ruling No. and Date : GUJ/GAAR/R/25/2020 dated 09.07.2020

Questions before the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling [‘GAAR’], Goods and Service Tax:

“Whether the applicant is eligible to get the benefit of entry No.74 of exemption Notification No.12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017?”

Answer: “The applicant M/s. Oswal Industries Ltd. (M/s. Nimba Nature Cure Village) is not eligible to get the benefit of entry No.74 of exemption Notification No.12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.”

AAAR Gujarat - We are of the view that the services being supplied by the appellant cannot be termed as services by way of health care services by a clinical establishment, an authorised medical practitioner or paramedics. As such, the services of the appellant cannot be held to be covered under 12 Page 12 of 15 Sr. No. 74 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and Notification No. 12/2017-State Tax (Rate) dated 30.06.2017.

Held: We confirm the Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/25/2020 dated 09.07.2020 by holding that M/s. Oswal Industries Ltd. (M/s. Nimba Nature Cure Village) is not eligible to get the benefit of Sr. No. 74 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and corresponding Notification No. 12/2017-State Tax (Rate) dated 30.06.2017.

GUJ/GAAR/R/25/2020 dated 09.07.2020 View
19 Tamil Nadu AAAR-GW-67-2022-TN 11-February-2022, TN/AAAR/03/2022(AR) 1. M/s Healersark Resources Private Limited

Advance Ruling No. and Date : Tamilnadu Order No. 37/ARA/2021 dated 21.10.2021

Questions before the Tamilnadu Authority for Advance Ruling [‘TNAAR’], Goods and Service Tax:

1. What is the applicable GST SAC code and the GST rate for the supplies made by them to M/s. Apollo Med Skills Limited (AMSL).

2. Is it a composite supply or a mixed supply?

3. Whether the service is exempted vide Notification No. 12/2017- CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

The Original Authority has ruled as under:- 

In view of the different views, the issue is placed for decision before the Appellate Authority as per the provisions under Section 98(5) of the Act.

AAAR Tamilnadu: We do not find merit in the opinion of the State Member and reject the same. The scope, language and the terms of the agreement establishes that the applicant is to extend the bouquet of services required from them as 'Hospitality Services' together and in conjunction with each other and therefore is a naturally bundled 'composite supply' of service, with 'Provision of accommodation' as the principal service and we agree with the findings of the Central Member in this regard.

Held: we rule as under:

a. The supply envisaged in the agreement entered with AMSL is a composite supply with 'Provision of Accommodation-SAC 9963' as Principal Supply.

b. The exemption at SI.No. 14 of Notification No. 12/2017-C.T.(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 is applicable to the case in hand.

Order No. 37/ARA/2021 DATED 21.10.2021 View
20 Gujarat AAAR-GW-46-2022-GJ 09-February-2022, GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2022/01 1. Amneal Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd

Advance Ruling No. and Date : GUJ/GAAR/R/51/2020 dated 30.07.2020

Questions before the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling [‘GAAR’], Goods and Service Tax:

Question: Whether the applicant is liable to pay GST on recovery of Notice Pay from the employees who are leaving the company without completing the notice period as specified in the Appointment Letter issued as per the contract entered between Employer and the Employee?” 

The GAAR examined the aforesaid question and vide Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/51/2020 dated 30.07.2020 answered in affirmative i.e. it held that the appellant is liable to pay GST on recovery of notice pay from the employees.

AAAR Gujarat - AS PER SEEMA ARORA : we confirm the Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/51/2020 dated 30.07.2020 of the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling, by holding that the appellant M/s. Amneal Pharmaceuticals Private Limited is liable to pay Goods and Services Tax at applicable rate on the amount of notice pay (liquidated damages) received from the employees leaving the job of the appellant without completing the notice period as specified in the contract entered into (Appointment Letter) between the appellant and its employees, and reject the appeal filed by M/s. Amneal Pharmaceuticals Private Limited.

AS PER MILIND TORAWANE: I allow the appeal filed by the appellant M/s. Amneal Pharmaceuticals Private Limited and modify the Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/51/2020 dated 30.07.2020 of the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling, by holding that the appellant is not liable to pay Goods and Services Tax on recovery of notice pay from employees who leave the company without completing the notice period as specified in the Appointment Letter issued as per the contract entered between employer and employees.

Held: As the members of appellate authority are differing, Section 101 (3) of CGST Act, 2017 shall apply.

GUJ/GAAR/R/51/2020 dated 30.07.2020 View
21 Kerala AAAR-GW-39-2022-KER 28-January-2022, AAR/19/2021 1. Abbott Healthcare Private Ltd

Whether the placement of specified medical instruments to unrelated customers like hospitals, labs etc for their use without any consideration for a specific period constitute a “supply” or whether it constitutes movement of goods otherwise than by way of supply as per provisions of the CGST / SGST Act?

100(1) View
22 Andhra Pradesh AAAR-GW-18-2022-AP 24-January-2022, AAAR/AP/04(GST)/2022 1. The Principal Commissioner Central Tax, Guntur, CGST Commissionerate

Advance Ruling No. and Date : APAAR No.25/AP/GST/2021 dated 20.07.2021.

Questions before the Andhra Pradesh Authority for Advance Ruling [‘APAAR’], Goods and Service Tax:

Question: Whether the transaction of hiring/leasing of buses by the APSRTC to the Public Transport Division (PTD) of Government of Andhra Pradesh is eligible for the exemption under Entry 22 of Notification No 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate)?

The Authority for Advance Ruling Andhra Pradesh in its orders in AAR No.25/AP/GST/2021 dated 20.07.2021 held:

  • The transaction of hiring/leasing of buses by the APSRTC to the Public Transport Division (PTD) of Government of Andhra Pradesh is eligible for the exemption under Entry 22 of Notification No 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate).

AAAR Andhra Pradesh - The meaning of the words 'State Transport undertaking' shall mandatorily be drawn from the Motor vehicles Act,1988. The definition clearly envisages the possibility of this service being run / carried on by the Central Government or a State Government. In the instant case, the PTD, the state government department which is running this service shall by definition be termed as the 'State Transport undertaking'. In view of the foregoing, we concur with the opinion of the lower authority.

Held: We confirm and uphold the ruling of the AAR.

APAAR No.25/AP/GST/2021 View
23 Andhra Pradesh AAAR-GW-31-2022-AP 24-January-2022, AAAR/AP/05(GST)/2022 1. M/s Vishnu Chemicals Limited

Advance Ruling No. and Date : APAAR No.21/AP/GST/2021 dated 20.07.2021.

Questions before the Andhra Pradesh Authority for Advance Ruling [‘APAAR’], Goods and Service Tax:

Question 1: Whether the tax invoice dated 01.04.2020 issued by the supplier of service for the rental service supplied for the period 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019 is hit by the limitation for claiming ITC under Section 16 (4) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017.

 

Question 2 : If the applicant avails ITC on such invoice after 01.04.2020 and before filing GST return for September 2021/Annual Return for 2020-2021, whether it amounts to violation of condition stipulated under sub- section(4).

The Authority for Advance Ruling Andhra Pradesh in its orders in AAR no.21 /AP/GST/ 2021 Dt.20.07.2021 ruled as under:

Answer Question 1: The invoice referred pertains to the services rendered in the financial year 2018-2019 and hence it is 'hit by the limitation for claiming ITC under Section 16 (4).

Answer Question 2: Affirmative.

AAAR Andhra Pradesh - We uphold the decision of the lower Authority, while dismissing the plea of the appellant for the reasons explained. It is our considered view that the appellant is not eligible to claim Input Tax Credit on the disputed invoice dated 01.04.2020 that was issued covering the supply of services pertaining to the period from 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019.

Held : We confirm and uphold the ruling of the AAR.

AAR No. 21/AP/GST/2021 View
24 Andhra Pradesh AAAR-GW-12-2022-AP 20-January-2022, AAAR/AP/01(GST)/2022 1. M/s Bharat Dynamics Limited

Advance Ruling No. and Date : APAAR No.11/AP/GST/2021 dated 10.02.2021.

Questions before the Andhra Pradesh Authority for Advance Ruling [‘APAAR’], Goods and Service Tax:

Question : Whether the Submarine Fired Decoy System (SFDS) supplied by the applicant is classifiable as 'parts of submarine' under Chapter Heading 8906 and, therefore, attract a GST rate of five (5%) by virtue of entry no. 252 of Schedule I in Notification No. 1/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.07.2017 ?

The Authority for Advance Ruling, Andhra Pradesh in its orders in AAR No.11/AP/GST/2021 dated 10.02.2021 held:

“The proposed supply in question falls under SI.No.434 under Chapter/Heading/Sub-heading/ Tariff Item 9306 under Schedule III of Notification No. 1/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dt: 28.06.2017 attracting tax rate of 18% as amended from time to time”.

AAAR Andhra Pradesh - In the present case, SFDS system is a similar system, as is in the case of Bharat Electronics Ltd. Further, following the spirit of the advance rulings pronounced by various Advance Ruling Authorities (on which the appellant placed reliance), we differ with the ruling of the lower Authority that, SFDS is not a part of 'Submarine', but an additional feature that falls under the category of 'arms and ammunition'.

It is our considered view that SFDS is a part of submarine falling under Section XVII Chapter 8906 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Held: We differ with the ruling of the Advance Ruling Authority and hereby modify the same and hold that the SFDS is classifiable as 'parts of Submarine' falling under Chapter 8906 and consequently attract a GST rate of five (5) percent, by virtue of entry No.252 of Schedule I in Notification No. 28.06.2017.

AAR No. 11 /AP/GST/2021 View
25 Andhra Pradesh AAAR-GW-11-2022-AP 20-January-2022, AAAR/AP/02(GST)/2022 1. M/s Sri Manjunatha Fruit Canning Industries

Advance Ruling No. and Date : APAAR No.17/AP/GST/2021 dated 14.07.2021.

Questions before the Andhra Pradesh Authority for Advance Ruling [‘APAAR’], Goods and Service Tax:

i) Can the Mango Pulp be treated as fresh fruit and exemption be claimed? If not whether the mango pulp falls under the heading 20079910 or 0804?

ii) What is the rate of tax payable on outward supplies of Mango fruit pulp under the GST Act?

The Authority for Advance Ruling Andhra Pradesh in its orders in AAR No.17/AP/GST/ 2021 dated 14.07.2021 held:

  • Mango Pulp/Puree shall neither be treated as a fresh fruit nor be classified under headings 20079910 or 0804,
  • 'Mango pulp/puree', under the entry no. 453 of Schedule-III of Notification No.1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dt: 28.06.2017 attracts the tax rate of 18%.

AAAR Andhra Pradesh - As there is no specific entry under GST tariff notifications meant for this product 'mango pulp/puree', the entry no. 453 of Schedule -III of Notification No.1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dt: 28.06.2017 is applicable, which is a residuary entry covering goods which are not specified in Schedules I, II, IV, V, VI of the Notification, attracting the tax rate of 18%.

Held : We hereby modify the Order passed by the Authority for Advance Ruling vide AAR No. 17/AP/GST/2021 Dated 14.07.2021 and hold that the 'Mango Pulp / Puree' is classifiable under Tariff Item 0804 50 40 and chargeable to GST @ 18%, by virtue of entry No.453 of Schedule III in Notification No. 1/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) Dated 28.06.2017.

AAR No. 17/AP/GST/2021 View
26 Andhra Pradesh AAAR-GW-10-1970-AP 20-January-2022, AAAR/AP/03(GST)/2022 1. M/s Foods and Inns Limited

Advance Ruling No. and Date : APAAR No.16/AP/GST/2021 dated 7.07.2021.

Questions before the Andhra Pradesh Authority for Advance Ruling [‘APAAR’], Goods and Service Tax:

Question: Can the Mango Pulp/puree be treated as fresh fruit and exemption be claimed on it? If not whether the mango pulp/puree falls under the heading 20079910 or 0804 or 2008?

Question: What is the rate of tax payable on outward supplies of Mango fruit Pulp/ Puree under the GST Act?

The Authority for Advance Ruling Andhra Pradesh in its orders in AAR No.16/AP/GST/2021 dated 07.07.2021 held:

  • Mango Pulp/Puree shall neither be treated as a fresh fruit nor be classified under headings 20079910 or 0804 or 2008.
  • ‘Mango pulp/puree', under the entry no. 453 of Schedule-III of Notification No.1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dt: 28.06.2017 attracts the tax rate of 18%.

AAAR Andhra Pradesh - As there is no specific entry under GST tariff notifications meant for this product 'mango pulp/puree', the entry no. 453 of Schedule -III of Notification No.1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dt: 28.06.2017 is applicable, which is a residuary entry covering goods which are not specified in Schedules I, II, IV, V, VI of the Notification, attracting the tax rate of 18%.

Held : We hereby modify the Order passed by the Authority for Advance Ruling vide AAR No. 17/AP/GST/2021 Dated 14.07.2021 and hold that the 'Mango Pulp / Puree' is classifiable under Tariff Item 0804 50 40 and chargeable to GST @ 18%, by virtue of entry No.453 of Schedule III in Notification No. 1/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) Dated 28.06.2017.

AAR No. 16/AP/GST/2021 View
27 Rajasthan AAAR-GW-145-2022-RJ 17-January-2022, RAJ/AAAR/05/2021-22 1. M/s Harish Chand Modi. Sardarpura

Reimbursement of electricity expenses had not been made on actual basis by the lessee to lessor as it has been collected in advance with rent and further adjusted by raising the invoice by the lessor. Further, the appellant has failed to establish themselves as pure agent. Reimbursement of electric expenses would form part of taxable value in term of clause (c) subsection (2) of Section 15 of the CGST Act, 2017.

RAJ/AAR/2021-22/19 DATED 21.09.2021 View
28 Tamil Nadu AAAR-GW-48-2022-TN 13-January-2022, TN/AAAR/01/2022(AR) 1. M/s Navbharat Imports

Advance Ruling No. and Date : Tamilnadu Order No. 35/AAR/2021 Dated: 30.09.2021

Questions before the Tamilnadu Authority for Advance Ruling [‘TNAAR’], Goods and Service Tax:

When physical force is the primary action of a Toy and if the light and the music are ancillary to it then whether it is to be classified under “Electronic Toys” or “other than Electronic Toys”?

The AAR pronounced the following rulings:

The products Children Scooter, Activity Ride-on, Smart Tricycle and Kick Scooter, in which physical force is the primary action and contains an in built electronic circuit, are “Electronic Toys” and the applicable GST Rate is CGST @9% as per serial number 440 of Schedule-III of Notification No. 01/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and SGST @9% as per Sl.no.440 of Schedule-III to Notification No. II(2)/CTR/532 (d-4)/2017 Vide G.O.Ms No.62 dated 29.06.2017.

AAAR Tamilnadu : In the case of appellants, it is apparently clear that all the four products contain electronic components irrespective of its usage, the said goods would fail to fall under serial number 228 of schedule II to the Notification No.1/2017 Central Tax Rate dated 28-6-2017 and therefore they have to be classified under serial number 440 of schedule III to the Notification No.1/2017 Central Tax Rate dated 28-6-2017. The Advance Ruling Authority has with the aid of standard applicable for tools have also came to the conclusion that the goods of the appellate are classifiable under serial number 440 of schedule III to the Notification No.1/2017 Central Tax Rate dated 28-6-2017, which we hold that no interference is warranted and accordingly the appeal fails.

Held: As far as these toys consists of electronic components irrespective of the usage, they would attract 18% GST as per Sl.No. 440 of Schedule-III of the Rate Notification. The subject appeal is dismissed accordingly.

TN/35/ARA/2021 dated 30.09.2021 View
29 Tamil Nadu AAAR-GW-13-2022-TN 13-January-2022, TN/AAAR/02/2022(AR) 1. M/s Krishna Bhavan Foods and Sweets

Advance Ruling No. and Date : Tamilnadu Order No. 24/AAR/2021 Dated: 18.06.2021

Questions before the Tamilnadu Authority for Advance Ruling [‘TNAAR’], Goods and Service Tax:

1. Clarification on rate of GST for their products  i.e. Dosai Mixes, IDLY MIXES, TIFFIN MIXES, HEALTH MIXES, PORRIADGE MIXES and

2. The applicable HSN CODE.

The AAR pronounced the following rulings:

The classification of the products is CTH 2106 and the applicable rate of tax is 9%CGST as per entry no.23 of Schedule-Ill of Notification No. l/2017-C.T.(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and 9% SGST as per entry no. 23 of Schedule-Ill of Notification No. II(2)/CTR/532(d-4)/2017 vide G.O. (Ms) No. 62 dated 29.06.2017 as amended and the same, item-wise is tabulated.

AAAR Tamilnadu : The appellant at the time of personal hearing has stated that the learned State jurisdictional authority who has the administrative jurisdiction over the applicant, has stated that the applicant's products fall under the chapter heading 2106 attracting GST 5% as per Notification No.41/2017, dated. 14.11.2017 through their written submissions. It is worth mentioning that the remarks of the Jurisdictional Officer is not substantiated and it is his comments/opinion and this Authority is not bound by their observations. Further, Advance Ruling is a facility extended to the applicant to have clarity on the tax liability of their supplies being made/proposed to be made and this authority examines the facts independently. Also, under Section 60 of the GST Act 2017, the appellants might have availed the opportunity of provisional assessment before the jurisdiction Assessing officer. Having failed to avail this, the appellant need not raise the issue before this forum.

Held: We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Tamil Nadu Advance Ruling Authority in this matter and accordingly the appeal fails and dismissed.

TN/24/ARA/2021 dated 18.06.2021 View
30 Rajasthan AAAR-GW-12-1970-RJ 11-January-2022, RAJ/AAAR/04/2021-22 1. M/s Utsav Corporation

1. It was held that controller will attract GST at appropriate rate applicable to items of Chapter Heading 8504.     2.  Iron structure designed for use of solar panel is classifiable under Chapter Heading 7308 and neither be classified as solar power based devices nor called as solar power generators and the rate of tax as applicable to such devices or system cannot apply to the iron and steel structures.    3. Supply of different types of goods in bundle on a single invoice is falls under mixed supply and higher rate of tax is applicable.     4. supply of Solar water pumping system alongwith installation, benefit of entry No. 38 of Notification No. 11/2017-CT and entry No. 234 of Notification No. 1/2017-CT is available to appellant.

RAJ/AAR/2021-22/10 DATED 03.09.2021 View
31 Gujarat AAAR-GW-17-2022-GJ 22-December-2021, GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2021/36 1. M/s. Aristo Bullion Pvt. Ltd

Advance Ruling No. and Date : GUJ/GAAR/R/15/2021 dated 27.01.2021

Questions before the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling [‘GAAR’], Goods and Service Tax:

Question: Can the applicant/appellant use Input Tax Credit Balance available in the Electronic Credit Ledger legitimately earned on the inputs/raw-materials/inward supplies (meant for outward supply of Bullions) towards the GST liability on Castor Oil Seeds which were procured from Agriculturists and subsequently meant for onward supply?

The GAAR has given answer to the question as under:

Answer : The applicant cannot use the Input Tax Credit Balance available in the Electronic Credit Ledger legimately earned on the inputs/rawmaterials/inward supplies(meant for outward supply of Bullions) towards the GST liability on ‘Castor Oil Seed’ which were procured from Agriculturists and subsequently meant for onward supply, for the reasons discussed hereinabove.

AAAR Gujarat - The applicant/appellant can use the Input Tax Credit Balance available in its Electronic Credit Ledger, which has been legitimately earned on the inputs / inward supplies (meant for outward supply of Bullions) for payment of ‘output tax’ (GST) on its outward supply of Castor Oil Seeds.

Held: We hold that payment of output tax on Castor Oil Seeds through utilization of Input Tax Credit taken on Gold & Silver Dore Bars etc. cannot be denied merely on the ground that the inputs have no nexus with outward supply.

GUJ/GAAR/R/15/2021 dated 27.01.2021 View
32 Gujarat AAAR-GW-1073-2021-GJ 22-December-2021, GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2021/35 1. Shree Dipesh Anilkumar Naik

Advance Ruling No. and Date : GUJ/GAAR/R/2020/11 dated 19.05.2020

Questions before the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling [‘GAAR’], Goods and Service Tax:

“Whether GST is applicable on sale of plot of land for which, as per the requirement of approval by the respective authority (the Jilla Panchayat), primary amenities such as, Drainage line, water line, electricity line, land leveling etc. are to be provided by the applicant?

The GAAR has given answer to the question as under:

Answer: Answered in the Affirmative.

AAAR Gujarat - We confirm the Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/11/2020 dated 19.05.2020 to the extent it has been appealed before us and hold that –

The transaction/activity of the appellant is not covered under Entry No.5 of Schedule-III of the CGST Act, 2017 as it is a sale of developed plots and is a supply of taxable service falling under the head ‘Construction services’ appearing at Sr.No.3 of Notification No.11/2017-Central Tax(Rate) dated 28.06.2017(as amended from time to time) issued under the CGST Act, 2017 and is liable to GST at 18%, for the reasons discussed.

Held : The appeal filed by Shree Dipesh Anilkumar Naik is rejected.

GUJ/GAAR/R/2020/11 dated 19.05.2020 View
33 Karnataka AAAR-GW-1000-2021-KT 22-December-2021, KAR/AAAR/Appeal-11/2021-22 1. Premier Sales Promotion Pvt. Ltd.

Advance Ruling No. and Date : KAR ADRG 37/2021 dated 30/07/2021

Questions before the Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling [‘KAAR’], Goods and Service Tax :

“(a) Whether the vouchers themselves, or the act of supplying them is taxable, and at what stage, for each of the three categories of transactions undertaken by the Appellant?

(b) If the answer to the above is in the affirmative, what would be the rate of tax at which this would be taxable i.e what category would this be taxed under?”

The Karnataka AAR vide its order KAR ADRG No 37/2021 dated 30th .July 2021 held as under:

“The supply of vouchers is taxable and the time of supply in all three cases would be governed by Section 12(5) of the CGST Act, 2017

The rate of tax on the supply of vouchers is 18% GST as per entry no. 453 of Schedule III of Notification No. 01/2017-Central Tax (R) dated 28.06.2017.”

Karnataka AAAR : Having concluded that the vouchers traded by the Appellant are goods and not actionable claims, we hold that the supply of vouchers by the Appellant is a supply of goods in terms of Section 7 of the CGST Act. We are in complete agreement with the ruling given by the lower Authority on the aspect of value of the vouchers for the purpose of GST, the rate of tax and the time of supply of the vouchers by the Appellant. Since the Appellant is not the issuer of the voucher, the provisions of time of supply under Section 12(4) will not apply and the time of supply will be governed by the provisions of Section 12(5) of the CGST Act.

Held : We uphold the order No. KAR ADRG 37/2021 dated 30/07/2021 passed by the Advance Ruling Authority and the appeal filed by the Appellant M/s. Premier Sales Promotion Pvt Ltd stands dismissed on all counts.

KAR/ADRG 37/2021 View
34 Maharashtra AAAR-GW-1027-2021-MH 21-December-2021, MAH/AAAR/AM-RM/01/2021-22 1. M/s Cummins India Limited

Advance Ruling No. and Date : GST-ARA-66/2018-19/B-162 dated 19.12.2018

Questions before the Maharastra Authority for Advance Ruling [‘MHAAR’], Goods and Service Tax :

i. Classification of Engine manufactured by Appellant

ii. Levy of GST on facilitation of common input services, necessity of registering as an 'Input Service Distributor' ('ISD') and determination of assessable value.

Ruling passed by the Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling : 

i. Availment of input tax credit on common input supplies on behalf of other unit / units registered as distinct person qualifies as supply and attracts GST.

ii. Assessable value shall be arrived in terms of Rule 30 of the CGST Rules, 2017 (i.e. 110% of the cost of provision of such services).

iii. The Appellant is required to obtain registration as ISD.

Maharastra AAAR: it is evident that the employees of the Appellant's Head Office are working at behest of the Head Office, and not at behest of the Branch Offices/Units. Further, since the Head Office is using all its human resources to facilitate the operational requirements of the Branch Offices/Units by way of procuring common input services on behalf of the Branch Offices/Units. thereby, providing the impugned facilitation services, therefore, allocation and recovery of any amount including its employees salary cost from the Branch Offices/Units will be subject to GST. The Appellant have further contended regarding inapplicability of GST on the allocation and recovery of the salary cost of the Head Office's employee from the Branch Offices/Units owing to the entry I of the Schedule III to the CGST Act. 2017, which stipulates as under: services by an employee to the employer in the course of or in relation to his employment shall neither be treated as supply of Goods nor supply of services. In this regard, it is opined that the above contention put forth by the Appellant is misplaced and erroneous in as much as the impugned transaction of facilitation services are not effected between the employees and the employer, but between the Head Office and Branch Offices/Units. which are distinct units in terms of Section 25(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, and the same is clearly taxable under GST in terms of Section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017. Hence the allocation and recovery of the salary of the employees of the Head Office from the Branch Office/Units will be subject to GST.

Held : Partially modify the ruling passed by the Maharashtra Advance Ruling Authority Vide Order No GST-ARA-66/2018-19 B-162 dated 19.12.2018, and answer the questions, raised by the Appellant in their Appeal filed before us, as under:

1. Whether availment of common input supplies on behalf of other unit/units registered as distinct person and further allocation of the cost incurred for same to such other units qualifies as supply and attracts levy of GST?

Yes, availment of common input supplies from the third-party service vendors/suppliers on behalf of the Branch Offices/Units, registered as distinct persons will qualify as supply of services in accordance with the provision of Section 7(1)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017. However, the cost of the said common input services availed on behest of Branch Offices/Units and allocated to the Branch Offices/Units by the Head Office will not attract the levy of GST as the said costs have been incurred by the Head Office in the capacity of a pure agent of the Branch Offices/Units, and as such, the said cost incurred by the Head Office shall be excluded from the value of supply of the facilitation services.

2.If GST is leviable, whether assessable value can be determined by arriving at nominal value?

The assessable value of the services provided by the Head Office to the branch offices/units can be determined as per the the second proviso to clause(c )of  Rule 28 of the CGST Rules, 2017, which provides that value of the tax invoice will be deemed as the open market value of the services.

3. Once GST is levied and ITC thereof is availed by recipient unit, whether the Applicant is required to register itself distribution of ITC on common input supplies?

Since, the Head Office is not entitled to avail and utilize the credit of tax paid to the third-party service vendors for the common input services received by it on behalf of the Branch Offices/Units as the said common input services received by the Appellant's Head Office are being used or consumed by the Branch Offices/Units in the course or furtherance of their businesses, and not by the Head Office. Therefore, the Appellant is bound to take the ISD registration as mandated by section 24(viii) of the CGST Act, 2017, and comply with all the provisions made in this regard, if it intends to distribute the credit of tax paid on the common input services received by it, on behalf of the branch offices units, to the branch offices/units.

GST-ARA-66/2018-19/B-162 dated 19.12.2018 View
35 Kerala AAAR-GW-15-2021-KER 14-December-2021, AAR/18/2021 1. K.Pazhanan, M/s S.D.Chips

Advance Ruling No. and Date : KER/112/2021 dated 26/5/2021

Questions before the Kerala Authority for Advance Ruling [‘KAAR’], Goods and Service Tax which were ruled as: 

1. Whether banana chips (made out of both raw as well as ripe banana) sold without BRAND NAME are classifiable as NAMKEENS and are covered by HSN code 2106.90.99 and taxable under Entry 101A of Schedule I of Central Tax (Rate) Notification No.1 of 2017?

No. The Banana Chips are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.40 and is liable to GST at the rate of 12% [6% - CGST + 6% - SGST] as per Entry at SI No. 40 of Schedule II of Notification No.01/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

2. Whether Sharkarai Varatty sold without BRAND NAME is classifiable as SWEET MEAT and are covered by HSN Code 2106.90.99 and taxable under Entry 101A of schedule I of Central Tax (Rate) Notification No.1 of 2017?

No. Sharkara Varatty is classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.40 and is liable to GST at the rate of 12% [6% - CGST + 6% - SGST] as per Entry at SI No. 40 of Schedule II of Notification No.01/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

3. Whether roasted and salted / salted / roasted preparations such as of ground nuts, cashew nut and other seeds are NAMKEENS and when sold without a brand name can they be classified under HSN 2106.90.99 and taxed under Entry 101A of Schedule 1 of Central Tax (Rate) Notification No.1 of 2017?

No. Roasted / salted / roasted and salted Cashew nuts are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.10 and roasted / salted / roasted and salted Ground nuts and other nuts are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.20 and is liable to GST at the rate of 12% [6% - CGST + 6% - SGST] as per Entry at SI No. 40 of Schedule II of Notification No.01/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

4. Whether salted and masala chips of potato and tapioca are classifiable as namkeens and when sold without a brand name can they be classified under HSN 2106.90.99 and taxed under Entry 101A of Schedule I of Central Tax (Rate) Notification 1 of 2017?

No. The salted and masala chips of Potato and Tapioca are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.40 and is liable to GST at the rate of 12% [6% - CGST + 6% - SGST] as per Entry at SI No. 40 of Schedule II of Notification No.01/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Kerala AAAR: it is evident that all the products that fall under Chapter Heading 2008 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 attract GST at the rate of 12 % [6% CGST + 6% SGST].

Held: 

Q I. Whether banana chips (made out of both raw as well as ripe banana) said without BRAND NAME are classifiable as NAMKEENS and are covered by HSN code 2106.90.99 and taxable under Entry 101A of Schedule I of Central Tax (Rate) Notification No. l of 2017?

No. The Banana Chips are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.40 and is liable to GST at the rate of 12% [6% - CGST – 6% SGST] as per Entry at Sl No. 40 of Schedule II of Notification No. 01 /20L7 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Q2. Whether Sharkarai Varatty sold without BRAND NAME is classifiable as SWEET MEAT and are covered by HSN Code 2106.90.99 and taxable under Entry 101A of schedule I of Central Tax (Rate) Notification No. 1 of 2017?

No. Sharkara Varatty is classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.40 and is liable to CST at the rate of 12% [6% - CGST + 6% - SGST] as per Entry at Sl No. 40 of Schedule II of Notification No.01/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Q3. Whether roasted and salted / salted / roasted preparations such as of ground nuts, cashew nut and other seeds are NAMKEENS and when sold without a brand name can they be classified under HSN 2106.90.99 and taxed under Entry 101A of schedule I of CT(R) Notification No. l or 2017?

No. Roasted / salted / roasted and salted Cashew nuts are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.10 and roasted / salted / roasted and salted Ground nuts and other nuts are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.20 and is liable to GST at the rate of 12% [6% - CGST + 6% SGST] as per Entry at Sl No. 40 of Schedule II of Notification No.01 /2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Q4. Whether salted and masala chips of potato and tapioca are classifiable as namkeens and when sold without a brand name can they be classified under HSN 2106.90.99 and taxed Entry 101 A of Sch. I of Central Tax (Rate) Notification 1 of 2017?

No. The salted and masala chips of Potato and Tapioca are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.40 and is liable to GST at the rate of 12% [6% - CGST + 6% - SGST] as per Entry at Sl. No. 40 of schedule II of Notification No.01/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

In nut shell, the Advance Ruling No. KER/112/2021 dated 26/5/2021 of the Advance Ruling Authority, Kerala stands upheld with aforesaid modification and consequently the appeal filed by the appellant is rejected.

KER/112/2021 dated 26/5/2021 View
36 Kerala AAAR-GW-14-2021-KER 14-December-2021, AAR/17/2021 1. M/s N.V.Chips

Advance Ruling No. and Date : KER/114/2021 dated 26/5/2021

Questions before the Kerala Authority for Advance Ruling [‘KAAR’], Goods and Service Tax which were ruled as: 

1. Whether banana chips (made out of both raw as well as ripe banana) sold without BRAND NAME are classifiable as NAMKEENS and are covered by HSN code 2106.90.99 and taxable under Entry 101A of Schedule I of Central Tax (Rate) Notification No.1 of 2017?

No. The Banana Chips are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.40 and is liable to GST at the rate of 12% [6% - CGST + 6% - SGST] as per Entry at SI No. 40 of Schedule II of Notification No.01/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

2. Whether Sharkarai Varatty sold without BRAND NAME is classifiable as SWEET MEAT and are covered by HSN Code 2106.90.99 and taxable under Entry 101A of schedule I of Central Tax (Rate) Notification No.1 of 2017?

No. Sharkara Varatty is classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.40 and is liable to GST at the rate of 12% [6% - CGST + 6% - SGST] as per Entry at SI No. 40 of Schedule II of Notification No.01/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

3. Whether roasted and salted / salted / roasted preparations such as of ground nuts, cashew nut and other seeds are NAMKEENS and when sold without a brand name can they be classified under HSN 2106.90.99 and taxed under Entry 101A of Schedule 1 of Central Tax (Rate) Notification No.1 of 2017?

No. Roasted / salted / roasted and salted Cashew nuts are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.10 and roasted / salted / roasted and salted Ground nuts and other nuts are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.20 and is liable to GST at the rate of 12% [6% - CGST + 6% - SGST] as per Entry at SI No. 40 of Schedule II of Notification No.01/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

4. Whether salted and masala chips of potato and tapioca are classifiable as namkeens and when sold without a brand name can they be classified under HSN 2106.90.99 and taxed under Entry 101A of Schedule I of Central Tax (Rate) Notification 1 of 2017?

No. The salted and masala chips of Potato and Tapioca are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.40 and is liable to GST at the rate of 12% [6% - CGST + 6% - SGST] as per Entry at SI No. 40 of Schedule II of Notification No.01/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Kerala AAAR: it is evident that all the products that fall under Chapter Heading 2008 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 attract GST at the rate of 12 % [6% CGST + 6% SGST].

Held: 

Q I. Whether banana chips (made out of both raw as well as ripe banana) said without BRAND NAME are classifiable as NAMKEENS and are covered by HSN code 2106.90.99 and taxable under Entry 101A of Schedule I of Central Tax (Rate) Notification No. l of 2017?

No. The Banana Chips are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.40 and is liable to GST at the rate of 12% [6% - CGST – 6% SGST] as per Entry at Sl No. 40 of Schedule II of Notification No. 01 /20L7 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Q2. Whether Sharkarai Varatty sold without BRAND NAME is classifiable as SWEET MEAT and are covered by HSN Code 2106.90.99 and taxable under Entry 101A of schedule I of Central Tax (Rate) Notification No. 1 of 2017?

No. Sharkara Varatty is classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.40 and is liable to CST at the rate of 12% [6% - CGST + 6% - SGST] as per Entry at Sl No. 40 of Schedule II of Notification No.01/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Q3. Whether roasted and salted / salted / roasted preparations such as of ground nuts, cashew nut and other seeds are NAMKEENS and when sold without a brand name can they be classified under HSN 2106.90.99 and taxed under Entry 101A of schedule I of CT(R) Notification No. l or 2017?

No. Roasted / salted / roasted and salted Cashew nuts are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.10 and roasted / salted / roasted and salted Ground nuts and other nuts are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.20 and is liable to GST at the rate of 12% [6% - CGST + 6% SGST] as per Entry at Sl No. 40 of Schedule II of Notification No.01 /2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Q4. Whether salted and masala chips of potato and tapioca are classifiable as namkeens and when sold without a brand name can they be classified under HSN 2106.90.99 and taxed Entry 101 A of Sch. I of Central Tax (Rate) Notification 1 of 2017?

No. The salted and masala chips of Potato and Tapioca are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.40 and is liable to GST at the rate of 12% [6% - CGST + 6% - SGST] as per Entry at Sl. No. 40 of schedule II of Notification No.01/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

In nut shell, the Advance Ruling No. KER/114/2021 dated 26/5/2021 of the Advance Ruling Authority, Kerala stands upheld with aforesaid modification and consequently the appeal filed by the appellant is rejected.

KER/114/2021 dated 26/5/2021 View
37 Kerala AAAR-GW-13-2021-KER 14-December-2021, AAR/16/2021 1. Kuttappamoothan Swaminathan

Advance Ruling No. and Date : KER/105/2021 dated 25/5/2021

Questions before the Kerala Authority for Advance Ruling [‘KAAR’], Goods and Service Tax which were ruled as: 

1. Whether banana chips (made out of both raw as well as ripe banana) sold without BRAND NAME are classifiable as NAMKEENS and are covered by HSN code 2106.90.99 and taxable under Entry 101A of Schedule I of Central Tax (Rate) Notification No.1 of 2017?

No. The Banana Chips are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.40 and is liable to GST at the rate of 12% [6% - CGST + 6% - SGST] as per Entry at SI No. 40 of Schedule II of Notification No.01/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

2. Whether Sharkarai Varatty sold without BRAND NAME is classifiable as SWEET MEAT and are covered by HSN Code 2106.90.99 and taxable under Entry 101A of schedule I of Central Tax (Rate) Notification No.1 of 2017?

No. Sharkara Varatty is classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.40 and is liable to GST at the rate of 12% [6% - CGST + 6% - SGST] as per Entry at SI No. 40 of Schedule II of Notification No.01/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

3. Whether roasted and salted / salted / roasted preparations such as of ground nuts, cashew nut and other seeds are NAMKEENS and when sold without a brand name can they be classified under HSN 2106.90.99 and taxed under Entry 101A of Schedule 1 of Central Tax (Rate) Notification No.1 of 2017?

No. Roasted / salted / roasted and salted Cashew nuts are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.10 and roasted / salted / roasted and salted Ground nuts and other nuts are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.20 and is liable to GST at the rate of 12% [6% - CGST + 6% - SGST] as per Entry at SI No. 40 of Schedule II of Notification No.01/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

4. Whether salted and masala chips of potato and tapioca are classifiable as namkeens and when sold without a brand name can they be classified under HSN 2106.90.99 and taxed under Entry 101A of Schedule I of Central Tax (Rate) Notification 1 of 2017?

No. The salted and masala chips of Potato and Tapioca are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.40 and is liable to GST at the rate of 12% [6% - CGST + 6% - SGST] as per Entry at SI No. 40 of Schedule II of Notification No.01/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Kerala AAAR: it is evident that all the products that fall under Chapter Heading 2008 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 attract GST at the rate of 12 % [6% CGST + 6% SGST].

Held: 

Q I. Whether banana chips (made out of both raw as well as ripe banana) said without BRAND NAME are classifiable as NAMKEENS and are covered by HSN code 2106.90.99 and taxable under Entry 101A of Schedule I of Central Tax (Rate) Notification No. l of 2017?

No. The Banana Chips are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.40 and is liable to GST at the rate of 12% [6% - CGST – 6% SGST] as per Entry at Sl No. 40 of Schedule II of Notification No. 01 /20L7 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Q2. Whether Sharkarai Varatty sold without BRAND NAME is classifiable as SWEET MEAT and are covered by HSN Code 2106.90.99 and taxable under Entry 101A of schedule I of Central Tax (Rate) Notification No. 1 of 2017?

No. Sharkara Varatty is classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.40 and is liable to CST at the rate of 12% [6% - CGST + 6% - SGST] as per Entry at Sl No. 40 of Schedule II of Notification No.01/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Q3. Whether roasted and salted / salted / roasted preparations such as of ground nuts, cashew nut and other seeds are NAMKEENS and when sold without a brand name can they be classified under HSN 2106.90.99 and taxed under Entry 101A of schedule I of CT(R) Notification No. l or 2017?

No. Roasted / salted / roasted and salted Cashew nuts are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.10 and roasted / salted / roasted and salted Ground nuts and other nuts are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.20 and is liable to GST at the rate of 12% [6% - CGST + 6% SGST] as per Entry at Sl No. 40 of Schedule II of Notification No.01 /2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Q4. Whether salted and masala chips of potato and tapioca are classifiable as namkeens and when sold without a brand name can they be classified under HSN 2106.90.99 and taxed Entry 101 A of Sch. I of Central Tax (Rate) Notification 1 of 2017?

No. The salted and masala chips of Potato and Tapioca are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.40 and is liable to GST at the rate of 12% [6% - CGST + 6% - SGST] as per Entry at Sl. No. 40 of schedule II of Notification No.01/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

In nut shell, the Advance Ruling No. KER/105/2021 dated 25/5/2021 of the Advance Ruling Authority, Kerala stands upheld with aforesaid modification and consequently the appeal filed by the appellant is rejected.

KER/105/2021 dated 25/5/2021 View
38 Kerala AAAR-GW-12-2021-KER 14-December-2021, AAR/15/2021 1. M/s Glow Worm Chips

Advance Ruling No. and Date : KER/113/2021 dated 26/5/2021

Questions before the Kerala Authority for Advance Ruling [‘KAAR’], Goods and Service Tax which were ruled as: 

1. Whether banana chips (made out of both raw as well as ripe banana) sold without BRAND NAME are classifiable as NAMKEENS and are covered by HSN code 2106.90.99 and taxable under Entry 101A of Schedule I of Central Tax (Rate) Notification No.1 of 2017?

No. The Banana Chips are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.40 and is liable to GST at the rate of 12% [6% - CGST + 6% - SGST] as per Entry at SI No. 40 of Schedule II of Notification No.01/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

2. Whether Sharkarai Varatty sold without BRAND NAME is classifiable as SWEET MEAT and are covered by HSN Code 2106.90.99 and taxable under Entry 101A of schedule I of Central Tax (Rate) Notification No.1 of 2017?

No. Sharkara Varatty is classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.40 and is liable to GST at the rate of 12% [6% - CGST + 6% - SGST] as per Entry at SI No. 40 of Schedule II of Notification No.01/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

3. Whether roasted and salted / salted / roasted preparations such as of ground nuts, cashew nut and other seeds are NAMKEENS and when sold without a brand name can they be classified under HSN 2106.90.99 and taxed under Entry 101A of Schedule 1 of Central Tax (Rate) Notification No.1 of 2017?

No. Roasted / salted / roasted and salted Cashew nuts are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.10 and roasted / salted / roasted and salted Ground nuts and other nuts are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.20 and is liable to GST at the rate of 12% [6% - CGST + 6% - SGST] as per Entry at SI No. 40 of Schedule II of Notification No.01/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

4. Whether salted and masala chips of potato and tapioca are classifiable as namkeens and when sold without a brand name can they be classified under HSN 2106.90.99 and taxed under Entry 101A of Schedule I of Central Tax (Rate) Notification 1 of 2017?

No. The salted and masala chips of Potato and Tapioca are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.40 and is liable to GST at the rate of 12% [6% - CGST + 6% - SGST] as per Entry at SI No. 40 of Schedule II of Notification No.01/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Kerala AAAR: it is evident that all the products that fall under Chapter Heading 2008 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 attract GST at the rate of 12 % [6% CGST + 6% SGST].

Held: 

Q I. Whether banana chips (made out of both raw as well as ripe banana) said without BRAND NAME are classifiable as NAMKEENS and are covered by HSN code 2106.90.99 and taxable under Entry 101A of Schedule I of Central Tax (Rate) Notification No. l of 2017?

No. The Banana Chips are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.40 and is liable to GST at the rate of 12% [6% - CGST – 6% SGST] as per Entry at Sl No. 40 of Schedule II of Notification No. 01 /20L7 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Q2. Whether Sharkarai Varatty sold without BRAND NAME is classifiable as SWEET MEAT and are covered by HSN Code 2106.90.99 and taxable under Entry 101A of schedule I of Central Tax (Rate) Notification No. 1 of 2017?

No. Sharkara Varatty is classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.40 and is liable to CST at the rate of 12% [6% - CGST + 6% - SGST] as per Entry at Sl No. 40 of Schedule II of Notification No.01/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Q3. Whether roasted and salted / salted / roasted preparations such as of ground nuts, cashew nut and other seeds are NAMKEENS and when sold without a brand name can they be classified under HSN 2106.90.99 and taxed under Entry 101A of schedule I of CT(R) Notification No. l or 2017?

No. Roasted / salted / roasted and salted Cashew nuts are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.10 and roasted / salted / roasted and salted Ground nuts and other nuts are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.20 and is liable to GST at the rate of 12% [6% - CGST + 6% SGST] as per Entry at Sl No. 40 of Schedule II of Notification No.01 /2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Q4. Whether salted and masala chips of potato and tapioca are classifiable as namkeens and when sold without a brand name can they be classified under HSN 2106.90.99 and taxed Entry 101 A of Sch. I of Central Tax (Rate) Notification 1 of 2017?

No. The salted and masala chips of Potato and Tapioca are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.40 and is liable to GST at the rate of 12% [6% - CGST + 6% - SGST] as per Entry at Sl. No. 40 of schedule II of Notification No.01/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

In nut shell, the Advance Ruling No. KER/113/2021 dated 26/5/2021 of the Advance Ruling Authority, Kerala stands upheld with aforesaid modification and consequently the appeal filed by the appellant is rejected.

KER/113/2021 dated 26/5/2021 View
39 Kerala AAAR-GW-11-2021-KER 14-December-2021, AAR/14/2021 1. M/s Aswani chips and bakers

Advance Ruling No. and Date : KER/115/2021 dated 26/5/2021

Questions before the Kerala Authority for Advance Ruling [‘KAAR’], Goods and Service Tax which were ruled as: 

1. Whether chips made from Jackfruit, Banana (both raw as well as ripe banana), Banana chips (masala), Potato, Tapioca, Chembu and Pavakka and sold without BRAND NAME are classifiable as NAMKEENS and are covered by HSN Code 2106.90.99 and taxable under Entry 101A of 1st Schedule of Central Tax (Rate) Notification 1/2017?

No. The Jackfruit Chips, Banana Chips, Potato Chips, Tapioca Chips, Chembu Chips and Pavakka Chips are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.40 and is liable to GST at the rate of 12% - CGST + 6% - SGST] as per Entry at Sl No. 40 of Schedule II of Notification No.01/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

2. Whether roasted and salted / salted / roasted preparations such as of Ground nuts, Cashew nut and other seeds are NAMKEENS and when sold without a brand name can they be classified under HSN 2106.90.99 and taxed under Entry 10 IA of Schedule 1 of Central Tax (Rate) Notification 1/2017?

No. Roasted / salted / roasted and salted Cashew nuts are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.10 and roasted / salted / roasted and salted Ground nuts and other nuts are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.20 and is liable to GST at the rate of 12% - CGST + 6% - SGST] as per Entry at Sl No. 40 of Schedule II of Notification No.01/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Kerala AAAR: It is evident that all the products that fall under Chapter Heading 2008 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 attract GST at the rate of 12 % [6% CGST + 6% SGST].

Held: Q 1. Whether chips made from Jackfruit, Banana (both raw as well as ripe banana), Banana chips (masala), Potato, Tapioca, Chembu and Pavakka and sold without BRAND NAME are classifiable as NAMKEENS and are covered by HSN Code 2106.90.99 and taxable under Entry 101 A of First Schedule of Central Tax (Rate) Notification 1/2017?

No. The Jackfruit Chips, Banana Chips, Potatoto Chips, Tapioca Chips, Chembu Chips and Pavakka Chips are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.40 and is liable to GST at the rate of 12% [6% - CGST + 6% SGST] as per Entry at Sl. No. 40 of Schedule II of Notification No. 01/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Q2. Whether roasted and salted /salted / roasted preparations such as of Ground nuts, Cashew nut and other seeds are NAMKEENS and when sold without a brand name can they be classified under HSN 2106.90.99 and taxed under Entry 101A of schedule I of Central Tax (Rate) Notification No. 1 of 2017?

No. Roasted/ salted / roasted and salted Cashew nuts are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.10 and roasted / salted/ roasted and salted Ground nuts and other nuts are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2008.19.20 and is liable to GST at the rate of 12% [6% - CGST + 6% - SGST] as per Entry at Sl No. 40 of Schedule II of Notification No.01/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.s

In nut shell, the Advance Ruling No. KER/115/2021 dated 26/5/2021 of the Advance Ruling Authority, Kerala stands upheld with aforesaid modification and consequently the appeal filed by the appellant is rejected.

KER/115/2021 dated 26/5/2021 View
40 Rajasthan AAAR-GW-66-2021-RJ 13-December-2021, RAJ/AAAR/03/2021-22 1. M/s Consulting Engineers Groups, Jaipur

It was held that holding of equity control of RUDSICO by JDA and Rajasthan Housing Board cannot be treated as holding of equity control by Government; therefore, RUDSOCO is not Government Authority. Appellant is not eligible for exemption under entry No. 3 of  notification no. 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 for supply provided as Project Management Service.

RAJ/AAR/2022-22/11 DATED 06.09.2021 View
41 Karnataka AAAR-GW-995-2021-KT 13-December-2021, KAR/AAAR/Appeal-10/2021-22 1. Mother Earth Environ Tech Private Limited.

Advance Ruling No. and Date : KAR ADRG 46.1/2021 dated 30/07/2021

Questions before the Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling [‘KAAR’], Goods and Service Tax : 

Whether the land filling pit can be considered as ‘Plant and machinery’ and therefore eligible for input tax credit or; whether the landfilling pit is to be considered as ‘civil structure’ and therefore become ineligible for input tax credit.”

the AAR vide its order KAR ADRG No 46/2020 dated 11th September 2020 held as under:

“The land filling pit is not a plant and machinery but a civil structure.”

Karnataka AAARWe would like to make it clear that there is no hesitation in concluding that the land filling pit is used by the Appellant for carrying out his business. At the same time, we are examining whether such land filling pit will be eligible for input tax credit. For this we find that goods and services received for construction of immovable property on own account has been specifically put under the blocked credit list under Section 17(5)(d) with the rider that it shall not apply to plant or machinery. Accordingly, in the second explanation given in Section 17, while providing the meaning of the term plant and machinery, it has been clearly stated that Buildings and Civil Structures shall not be covered under the term Plant. However, while so clarifying, it has been accepted and understood that plant and machinery many a times requires support structure and/or foundation for installation and cannot work otherwise. Thus, civil structures such as foundation and supporting structure for fastening of plant and machinery to earth has been included as part of plant and machinery. However, any other civil structure has clearly been excluded from the definition of ‘plant and machinery’. The land filling pit comes within the ambit of the exclusion and hence is not eligible for input tax credit.

Held: The Appellate Authority uphold the order No.KAR ADRG 46.1/2021 dated 30/07/2021 passed by the Advance Ruling Authority and the appeal filed by the Appellants M/s. Mother Earth Environ Tech Private Limited, stands dismissed all accounts.

NO.KAR.ADRG 46.1/2020 View
42 Rajasthan AAAR-GW-67-2021-RJ 10-December-2021, RAJ/AAAR/02/2021-22 1. M/s Tej Kumar Jain

It was held that  notification No, 08/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 12.01.2018 clearly used word Purchase price ,  only price paid at the time of purchase can be considered as purchase price to calculate margin

RAJ/AAR/2022-2204 DATED 25.08.2021 View
43 Gujarat AAAR-GW-1069-2021-GJ 02-December-2021, GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2021/32 1. M/s. Stovec Industries Ltd

Advance Ruling No. and Date : GUJ/GAAR/R/70/2020 dated 17.09.2020

Questions before the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling [‘GAAR’], Goods and Service Tax and answers to them are: 

Question 1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances, the specified transaction of the Applicant should be categorized as individual supply or composite supply of service as per the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017?

Answer : The specified transaction of the Applicant is a composite supply of service as per the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in view of the discussion herein above.

Question 2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances, the specified transaction of the Applicant is to be reckoned as being provided to SPA or to the customers of SPA located in India?

Ans. The person i.e. Indian customer to whom service is supplied in India in terms of the above discussion.

Question 3. Whether, in the facts and circumstances, the specified transaction of the Applicant could be categorized as that of an “intermediary” as per Section 2(13) of The Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017?

Ans. The specified transaction of the Applicant is categorized as an “intermediary” as per Section 2(13) of The Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

Question 4. Whether, in the facts and circumstances, the specified transaction qualifies to be “Export of service” as per Section 2(6) of The Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017?

Ans. Negative as per the above discussion.

AAAR Gujarat - The appellant has relied upon the ruling of Karnataka Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (‘AAAR’) in the case of M/s Volvo-Eicher Commercial Vehicles vide Order #KAR/AAAR-14B/2019-20 dated February 6, 2020.

We are of the view that as per Section 103 of the CGST Act, any Advance Ruling is binding on the Applicant who has sought it and on the concerned officer or the jurisdictional officer in respect of the Applicant. Accordingly, AAARs Ruling as cited above can’t be relied upon in the present case of the Appellant.

Held : In view thereof, we confirm the Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/70/2020 dated 17.09.2020 of the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling in respect of Ruling No. 1 and 4 and reject the appeal filed by the appellant M/s. Stovec Industries Ltd. to that extent as discussed above in respect of said Ruling.

We modify the Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/70/2020 dated 17.09.2020 of the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling in respect of Ruling No. 2 and 3. We do not agree with the view of the GAAR ruling in respect of Question No.2 and rule that the recipient of service is located outside India i.e. SPA in terms of consideration paid to the appellant and not Indian Customer. Further in respect to Ruling No. 3, in view of the clarification given by the board (CBIC) vide Circular No. 159/15/2021-GST dated 20.09.2021, it is ruled that the appellant is not an ‘intermediary’ in terms of provisions of Section 2(13) of IGST Act, 2017.

GUJ/GAAR/R/70/2020 dated 17.09.2020 View
44 Tamil Nadu AAAR-GW-1024-2021-TN 02-December-2021, TN/AAAR/22/2021(AR) 1. M/s INOX Air Products Pvt Ltd

Advance Ruling No. and Date : Order No.25/AAR/2021 dated 30.07.2021

Questions before the Tamilnadu Authority for Advance Ruling [‘TNAAR’], Goods and Service Tax :

Whether INOX would be entitled to avail and utilize ITC of GST Charged by IPL if such transaction is considered to be a supply.

The Tamilnadu Authority for Advance Ruling has ruled as follows:

The applicant is not entitled to avail and utilize ITC of GST charged by IPL as the same is restricted under Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST/TNGST Act 2017, if such transaction is considered to be a supply.

Tamilnadu AAAR : We find that ASP is installed and commissioned with foundation and structural support, embedded on the land, the leasehold rights of which is obtained by the appellant by receiving the service of agreeing to withdraw the lease hold rights held by IPL in their favour. Without the appellant having the leasehold rights. they cannot undertake 'construction' of the manufacturing Plant, ASP. Also, ASP is an immovable property and not mere 'Plant' or 'machinery' but can be termed as 'Plant and Machinery', the Explanation of which specifically excludes land. Thus, it is clear that intention of law maker is to restrict ITC on services related to land, received for construction. Thus, we hold that, the services received from IPL, the cost of which is capitalised along with ASP, is a service received 'for construction' of an immovable property, and therefore the taxes paid is restricted as per Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST/TNGST Act 2017 and we uphold the ruling of the Lower Authority.

Held: The ruling of the lower authority is upheld.

25/AAR/2021 dated 30.07.2021 View
45 Tamil Nadu AAAR-GW-1023-2021-TN 01-December-2021, TN/AAAR/21/2021(AR) 1. M/s Tiruppur City Municipal Corporation

Advance Ruling No. and Date : Order No. 15/ARA/2O21 Dated: 28.O4.2021

Questions before the Tamilnadu Authority for Advance Ruling [‘TNAAR’], Goods and Service Tax :

Q.1. Advance Ruling is required in respect of SI.No. 1 to 5, 7 to 9 as whether the services rendered by them are exempted or not under the Notification No. mentioned against each Sl.No.

Q.2 In respect of services rendered by them through tender contractors as mentioned in respect of SI.No. 1 to 9 are exempted or not under the Notification No. mentioned against each SI.No.

(ii) In respect of SI.No.10 to 12 instead of reverse charge we collected tax under direct charge from the service availers who are registered with GSTN w.e.f 25.01.2018 and whether it can be regularized or not.

Q.3 In respect of SI.No.14 they are collecting charges for laying of cables alongside roads and collecting road cutting charges as well as annual rent. We require advance ruling whether composite supply can be applied or not for classifying the said service as renting of immovable property service and reverse charge can be applied or not for collecting GST as per S.No. 5A of Notification 13/2017 CT(R )dated 28.06.2017 as amended form the telephone operators who are GSTN holders.

Q.4 In respect of S.No. 13 full exemption is applicable or not as noted against the SI.No.

(ii) In respect of S.No. 15 the renting of immovable property service rendered by us as a local authority to (i) pure State Govt. Offices, (ii) Central Government Offices, Co.operative societies, (iii) Nationalised Banks are fully exempted nor not as per SI.No. 8 of Notification 12/2017 dated 28.06.2017.

Held: i. In respect of Q.No. 1, Sl. No. 7 & Sl. No. 8  the appeal is not entertained for the reasons stated above.

ii.In respect of Q.No. 1, Sl. No. 5-B (Rent for locker provided in bus stand by the appellant) it is held to be an activity undertaken by the Municipality as a function entrusted under 243 W of the Constitution and the service of rent or fee collection for such a facility is neither a Supply of Goods nor a supply of Service as per Notification No. 14/2017-CT (Rate).
iii. In respect of Q.No. 2, the transaction between the corporation and the contractor as listed in Sl.No. 1. to 9, except at SI.No. 5A-Charges for TV advt. in Bus Stand &Sl.No.6 Bunk Stalls' of the said question, in the factual matrix presented, it is held to be an activity/transaction in relation to the activity/transaction undertaken by the appellant engaged as Public Authority and the same are covered under Notification No. 14/2017-C.T.(RATE) as amended
iv. In respect of Q.No. 2, Sl.No. 5A-Charges for TV advt. in Bus Stand & Sl. No. 6 -Bunk Stall' of the said question, the same is covered under Sl.No. 7 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate) as well as charging of tax on RCM basis under Sl.No. 5 of Notfn No. 13/2017-CT (Rate) subject to fulfillment of the conditions therein is available to appellant.
v. In respect of supply of services of allowing road cutting, and the subsequent track renting, the situation being factual in as much gas the road cutting is followed by laying of cables by telephone companies for which track rent is collected, the supply would be a Composite Supply extended to this particular activity not extended to all types of road cutting activities.

15/ARA/2O21 Dated: 28.O4.2021 View
46 Tamil Nadu AAAR-GW-1022-2021-TN 01-December-2021, TN/AAAR/20/2021(AR) 1. M/s The Erode City Municipal Corporation

Advance Ruling No. and Date : Order No. 14/ARA/2O21 Dated: 28.O4.2021

Questions before the Tamilnadu Authority for Advance Ruling [‘TNAAR’], Goods and Service Tax :

Q.1. Advance ruling is required in respect of SI No 1 to 6, 8, 9 &13 whether the services rendered by them directly are covered under Twelfth Schedule to Article 243W of the Constitution and /or exempted under the Notfn. No mentioned against each SI No.

Q2. In respect of services rendered by them from SI No 1 to 13 through tender contractors, whether they are covered under Twelfth Schedule to Article 243W of the Constitution and/or exempted vide the Notfn. no. mentioned against each SI No.

Q.3. In respect of SI No 14 they are collecting charges for laying of cables alongside roads and collecting road cutting charges as well as annual rent. They require advance ruling whether composite supply can be applied for classifying the said service as renting of immovable property service and reverse charge can be applied for collecting GST as per entry SI No 5A of the table to Notfn No 13/2017 (CE rate) dated 29-06-2017 as amended from the telephone operators who are GSTIN holders

Q.4. In respect of SI No 15 w.e.f. 25-01-2018, instead of reverse charge they collected tax under direct charge from the service availers who are registered with GSTIN and whether it can be regularised, (to be treated as technical lapse and condoned since the service rendered by us had suffered tax and Govt, revenue is not affected)

Q.5. In respect of SI No 16 the renting of immovable property service rendered by them as a local authority to,-

(i) Pure state Govt, offices (viz) Asst. Director Of L F Accounts, Project Officer, ICDS, ICDS Centre: Deputy Supt. Of Police and pure Central Govt offices (viz) post offices are fully exempted or not as per entry SI no 8 of the table to Notfn. No 12/2017 dated 28-06-2017.

(ii) Co-operative society(viz) Chindhamani Super Market, Jeeva Co-Op Society, TNSTC Staff Society, Jeeva Co-Op Society and transport corporation TNSTC are exempted or not as per entry SI no 8 of the table to Notfn. No 12/2017 dated 28-06-2017.

(iii) Nationalised Banks are exempted or not as per SI no 8 of the table to Notfn. No 12/2017 dated 28-06-2017.

Held : i. In respect of Q.No. 1, Sl. No. 7 & Sl. No. 8  the appeal is not entertained for the reasons stated.

ii.In respect of Q.No. 1, Sl. No. 5-B (Rent for locker provided in bus stand by the appellant) it is held to be an activity undertaken by the Municipality as a function entrusted under 243 W of the Constitution and the service of rent or fee collection for such a facility is neither a Supply of Goods nor a supply of Service as per Notification No. 14/2017-CT (Rate).


iii. In respect of Q.No. 2, the transaction between the corporation and the contractor as listed in Sl.No. 1. to 9 and 13, except at SI.No. 5A-Charges for TV advt. in Bus Stand; 5C-Flower shop in bus stand in open space & Sl.No.7 Bunk Stalls' of the said question, in the factual matrix presented, it is held to be an activity/transaction in relation to the activity/transaction undertaken by the appellant engaged as Public Authority and the same are covered under Notification No. 14/2017-C.T.(RATE) as amended.


iv. In respect of Q.No. 2, Sl.NO. 5A-Charges for TV advt. in Bus Stand; 5C-Flower Shop in bus stand in open space & Sl. No. 7 -Bunk Stall' of the said question, the same is covered under Sl.No. 7 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate) as well as charging of tax on RCM basis under Sl.No. 5 of Notfn No. 13/2017-CT (Rate) subject to fulfillment of the conditions therein is available to appellant.


v. In respect of supply of services of allowing road cutting, and the subsequent track renting, the situation being factual in as much gas the road cutting is followed by laying of cables by telephone companies for which track rent is collected, the supply would be a Composite Supply extended to this particular activity not extended to all types of road cutting activities.

14/ARA/2O21 Dated: 28.O4.2021 View
47 Uttar Pradesh AAAR-GW-1007-2021-UP 25-November-2021, UP_AAAR_19/2021 1. M/s Adithya Automotive Applications Pvt Ltd.

Advance Ruling No. and Date : Order No. UP ADRG 82/2021 dated 30.06.2021

Questions before the Uttar Pradesh Authority for Advance Ruling [‘UPAAR’], Goods and Service Tax :

(i) Whether the body building activity on the chassis provided by the principal would amount to manufacturing services attracting 18% of GST.

(ii) Whether clarification of CBIC vide para no. 12.3 of Circular No. 52/26/2018-GST date 09.08.2018 clarifying 18% rate of GST in respect of building of body of buses would also apply in the case of applicant.

Uttar Pradesh Authority for Advance Ruling, vide Order No. 82/2021 dated 30.06.2021 ruled that:

(i) the body building activity on the chassis provided by the principal would not amount to manufacturing services attracting 18% of GST.

(ii) clarification of CBIC vide para no. 12.3 of Circular No. 52/26/2018-GST date 09.08.2018 clarifying 18% rate of GST in respect of building of body of buses would also not apply in the case of applicant.

Uttar Pradesh AAAR : We also observe that as per Notification No. 11/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, as amended, it has been clarified that the Tax rate for “(ic) Services by way of job work in relation to bus body building” would be 18% (9% CGST & 9 % SGST). In view of above we are of the opinion that the Circular No. 52/26/2018-GST dated 09.08.2018 is squarely applicable in the case of Appellant.

Held: In view of the above discussion, we hold that the body building and mounting of body on the chassis of different models of Tippers, Tankers, Trucks and Trailers, on the chassis to be supplied by the Principal, on delivery challans, by collecting job work charges for such fabrication work is taxable @18%, in accordance with Circular No. 52/26/2018-GST dated 09.08.2018, subject to fulfillment of all the conditions prescribed in the Section 141 and 143 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with relevant Rules/Notifications.

UP_AAR_82_2021 dated 30.06.2021 View
48 Karnataka AAAR-GW-629-2021-KT 09-November-2021, KAR/AAAR/Appeal-09/2021-22 1. Airbus Group India Private Limited.

Advance Ruling No. and Date : KAR ADRG 31/2021 dated 01/07/2021

Questions before the Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling [‘KAAR’], Goods and Service Tax :

(a) Whether the activities carried out by the Appellant in India would constitute a supply of “Other Support Services”, falling under Heading 9985 or as “Intermediary Service” classifiable under Heading 9961/9962 or any other classification of services as specified under GST laws?

(b) Whether the services rendered by the Appellant would not be liable to GST, owing to the reason that such services may qualify as “export of services” in terms of clause 6 of Section 2 of the IGST Act, 2017 and consequently, be construed as a ‘zero-rated supply’ in terms of Section 16 of the IGST Act?”

The Karnataka AAR vide its order KAR ADRG No 31/2021 dated 1st July 2021 held as under:

“The activities carried out in India by the Applicant would constitute a supply as “Intermediary services” classifiable under SAC 998599.

The services rendered by the Applicant do not qualify as ‘export of services’ in terms of sub-section 2 of Section 6 of the IGST 2017 and consequently, are exigible to GST at the rate of 18% in terms of clause (iii) of entry no. 23 of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (R) dated 28.06.2017.”

Karnataka AAAR: When the place of supply is in India, it does not satisfy one of the conditions for export of service, that the place of supply should be outside India. Therefore, we hold that the intermediary services provided by the Appellant to Airbus France, do not qualify as export of service.

Held: The Appellate Authority uphold the order No.KAR ADRG 31/2021 dated 01/07/2021 passed by the Advance Ruling Authority and the appeal filed by the Appellants M/s. Airbus Group India Private Limited, stands dismissed all accounts.

NO.KAR.ADRG 31/2021 View
49 Gujarat AAAR-GW-1072-2021-GJ 02-November-2021, GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2021/34 1. M/s. SPX Flow Technology India Pvt. Ltd

Advance Ruling No. and Date : GUJ/GAAR/R/102/2020 dated 14.10.2020

Questions before the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling [‘GAAR’], Goods and Service Tax:

(i) Whether the activity undertaken by the applicant is covered by Entry No. 7 in Schedule 3 of the CGST Act, 2017?

(ii) Whether the applicant is liable to pay IGST on out and out transactions taking place beyond the Customs frontiers of India?

The ‘GAAR’, vide Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/102/2020 dated 14.10.2020, ruled as follows :-

(i) The activity undertaken by the applicant M/s. SPX Flow Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad is covered under Entry No. 7 in Schedule 3 of the CGST Act, 2017 in respect of the transactions undertaken for the period from 01.02.2019 onwards for the reasons discussed hereinabove.

(ii) Applicable IGST is payable on goods sold to customer located outside India, where goods are shipped directly from the vendor’s premises (located outside India) to the customer’s premises (located outside India) for such transactions effected upto 31.01.2019. However, no IGST is payable on such transactions effected from 01.02.2019 onwards, for the reasons discussed hereinabove.

Gujarat AAAR : It is observed that section 10 of the IGST Act, 2017 is applicable for determining place of supply of goods, other than supply of goods imported into, or exported from India. Thus, the plain reading of section 10 of the IGST Act, 2017 does not support the contention of the appellant.

The Advance Ruling in the case of Enmarol Petroleum India Pvt. Ltd. [2019 (20) G.S.T.L. 442 (A.A.R.-GST) has been issued, inter-alia, by considering CBIC Circular No. 3/1/2018-IGST dated 25.05.2018. As the various provisions of IGST Act, 2017 and the CGST Act, 2017 discussed hereinabove in detail have not been considered in that Advance Rulings, we are not inclined to follow the said Advance Ruling.

Held: The Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/102/2020 dated 14.10.2020 is confirmed to the extent it has been appeal against, by holding that the Integrated Goods and Services Tax was payable by the appellant M/s. SPX Flow Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd. from 01.07.2017 to 31.01.2019 on supply of goods directly from the vendor’s premises located outside India in the non – taxable territory to the customer’s premises located at another place outside India in the non-taxable territory, without such goods entering into India.

GUJ/GAAR/R/102/2020 dated 14.10.2020 View
50 Gujarat AAAR-GW-1071-2021-GJ 02-November-2021, GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2021/33 1. M/s. Rajivkumar Giriraj Bansal (Proprietor of M/s Gujarat Plast Industries

Advance Ruling No. and Date : GUJ/GAAR/R/99/2020 dated 14.10.2020.

Questions before the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling [‘GAAR’], Goods and Service Tax:

“Whether narrow woven fabrics manufactured are classifiable under Tariff Heading No. 58063990?”

The GAAR has given answer to the question as under:

No. The product, Narrow Woven Fabrics of Polyester Yarn of a width not exceeding 30 cm but not provided with selvedges (flat or tubular) on both edges manufactured by the applicant is classifiable uynder Chapter Subheading No. 5407.10.19 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, attracting rate of GST @ 5% (2.5% CGST+ 2.5% SGST) or IGST @ 5%.

Gujarat AAAR : We find that the product in question satisfy the conditions of narrow woven fabric mentioned in Chapter Note 5 of Chapter 58 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. We are of the view that the product is to be classified under CTH No. 58063990 and not under CTH No. 54071019 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975

Held: We modify the Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/99/2020 dated 14.10.2020 of the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of M/s. Rajiv Giriraj Bansal (legal Name) - M/s. Gujarat Plast Industries (Trade Name), and hold that –

(i) The product narrow woven fabric of Polypropylene yarn of width not exceeding 30 cms provided with selvedges on both edges manufactured by the appellant merit classification under Tariff heading No. 58063990 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, attracting rate of GST @5% (2.5% CGST + 2.5% SGST) or 5% IGST as per Sl. No. 219AA of Schedule-I of Notification No. 1/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended) and Notification No. 1/2017-IGST (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

GUJ/GAAR/R/99/2020 dated 14.10.2020 View
51 Gujarat AAAR-GW-1070-2021-GJ 02-November-2021, GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2021/30 1. Barkatbhai Noordinbhai Velani(M/s. Alisha Gruh Udyog)

Advance Ruling No. and Date : GUJ/GAAR/R/66/2020 dated 17.09.2020

Questions before the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling [‘GAAR’], Goods and Service Tax:

“Whether any tax is payable in respect of sale/ supply of Fryums manufactured by the applicant ? And if answer is in affirmative, the rate of tax thereof ”?

The GAAR has given answer to the question as under:

The product ‘fried Fryums’ manufactured and supplied by applicant is classifiable under Tariff Item 2106 90 99 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Goods and Services Tax rate of 18% (CGST 9% + GGST 9% or IGST 18%) is applicable to the product ‘fried Fryums’ as per Sl. No. 23 of Schedule III of Notification No. 1/2017Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017, as amended, issued under the CGST Act, 2017 and Notification No. 1/2017-State Tax (Rate), dated 30-6-2017, as amended, issued under the GGST Act, 2017 or IGST Act, 2017.

Gujarat AAAR : We hold that the product ‘different shapes and sizes Papad’ involved in the present case merit classification under Tariff heading No. 19059040 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. As we have already held that the product in question is classifiable under CTH No. 1905 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the said CTH No. 1905 is covered under entry No. 16 of Schedule-III of Notification No. 1/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and accordingly chargeable to 18% {9% CGST +9% SGST} rate of Goods and Services Tax.

Held: We modify the Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/66/2020 dated 17.09.2020 of the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of M/s. Barkatbhai Noordinbhai Velani (legal Name) - M/s. Alisha Gruh Udyog (Trade Name), and hold that –

(i) The product “fried - different shapes and sizes Papad” involved in the present case merit classification under Tariff heading No. 19059040 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and chargeable to 18% rate of Goods and Services Tax as per Sl. No. 16 of Schedule-III of Notification No. 1/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and Notification No. 1/2017-IGST (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

GUJ/GAAR/R/66/2020 dated 17.09.2020 View
52 Gujarat AAAR-GW-1046-2021-GJ 02-November-2021, GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2021/31 1. M/s. Shree Swaminarayan Foods Pvt.Ltd

Advance Ruling No. and Date : GUJ/GAAR/R/81/2018 dated 17.09.2020.

Questions before the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling [‘GAAR’], Goods and Service Tax:

“Whether any tax is payable in respect of sale of Fryums manufactured by the applicant? And if answer is in affirmative, the rate of tax thereof”?

The GAAR has given answer to the question as under:

The product ‘fried Fryums’ manufactured and supplied by applicant is classifiable under Tariff Item 2106 90 99 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Goods and Services Tax rate of 18% (CGST 9% + GGST 9% or IGST 18%) is applicable to the product ‘fried Fryums’ as per Sl. No. 23 of Schedule III of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017, as amended, issued under the CGST Act, 2017 and Notification No. 1/2017-State Tax (Rate), dated 30-6-2017, as amended, issued under the GGST Act, 2017 or IGST Act, 2017.

Gujarat AAAR : We hold that the product ‘different shapes and sizes Papad’ involved in the present case merit classification under Tariff heading No. 19059040 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. As we have already held that the product in question is classifiable under CTH No. 1905 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the said CTH No. 1905 is covered under entry No. 16 of Schedule-III of Notification No. 1/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and accordingly chargeable to 18% {9% CGST +9% SGST} rate of Goods and Services Tax.

Held: we modify the Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/81/2020 dated 08.10.2020 of the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of M/s. Barkatbhai Noordinbhai Velani (legal Name) - M/s. Shree Swaminarayan Foods Pvt. Ltd (Trade Name), and hold that –

(i) The product “fried - different shapes and sizes Papad” involved in the present case merit classification under Tariff heading No. 19059040 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and chargeable to 18% rate of Goods and Services Tax as per Sl. No. 16 of Schedule-III of Notification No. 1/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and Notification No. 1/2017-IGST (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

GUJ/GAAR/R/81/2020 dated 17.09.2020 View
53 Rajasthan AAAR-GW-68-2021-RJ 27-October-2021, RAJ/AAAR/01/2021-22 1. M/s Modi Education Foundation

The appellant will provide service of accommodation in hostel alongwith food to the student. Amount to be charged from students for package is less than Rs.1000/- per day. It was held that hostel accommodation alongwith food is not a composite supply but it is a mixed supply. Further, it was held that in this case per unit of accommodation is hostel seat.

RAJ/AAR/2021-22/02 Dated 07.07.2021 View
54 Tamil Nadu AAAR-GW-628-2021-TN 13-October-2021, TN/AAAR/19/2021(AR) 1. UNIQUE AQUA SYSTEMS

Advance Ruling No. and Date : Order No. 09/AAR/2021 Dated: 30.03.2021

Questions before the Tamilnadu Authority for Advance Ruling [‘TNAAR’], Goods and Service Tax :

Whether the Services provided by the applicant to the recipient i.e. The Greater Chennai Corporation is a pure service provided to the local authority by way of activity in relation to functions entrusted to a Panchayat. under article 243G and Municipality under article 243W of the Constitution and eligible for benefit of exemption provided under Serial No. 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017?

The Tamilnadu AAR pronounced the following rulings:

The Supply provided by the applicant to the recipient i.e. The Greater Chennai Corporation based on the agreement to provide RO Plant and undertake O & M of the same, being not a “Pure service” but a composite supply of goods & Services, they are not eligible for benefit of exemption provided at Serial No. 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Tamilnadu AAAR (SGST Member) - This service, being supply of water, would also squarely fall within the serial number 3 of notification number 12/2017, and will therefore be exempt from tax.

(CGST Member) - The issue is a Composite Supply involving ‘Supply, Installation, Commissioning of the RO Plants and undertake ‘O & M’ of such Plant’ both being undertaken in the GST Regime. The supply is a ‘Composite Supply of Works Contract’ and not a ‘Pure Service’, therefore the exemption at SI.No.3 of Notification No. 12/2017-C.T.(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 is not available in such situations.

In respect of issue where only O & M work was awarded to the appellant after 01.07.2017, in respect, of existing RO plants, during the ‘O & M’ also, it is held that the Maintenance of the RO Plant (which is an immovable property) involving transfer of property in goods is a ‘Works Contract’ and there is transfer of property in goods in the form of ‘RFID cards’ issued during the ‘O & M ‘ Period as a part of Operation of the Plant and therefore also, the exemption at SI.No.3 of Notification No. 12/2017-C.T.(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 is not available in such situations.

Held: The issue is not answered and is deemed to be that no ruling is issued under Section 101(3) of the CGST/TNGST Act 2017 because of the divergence of opinion between both the Members.

09/AAR/2021 Dated: 30.03.2021 View
55 AAAR-GW-10-1970- 05-October-2021, 01/AAAR/Temple/DMN/UGST/2020-21 1. M/s Temple Packaging Pvt. Ltd..

Advance Ruling No. and Date : No.01/Daman/2019-20-AR dated 18.07.2019

Questions before the Daman Authority for Advance Ruling [‘DAAR’], Goods and Service Tax :

The printed leaflet supplied by the applicant falls under the category of supply of goods falling under CHS No. 4901 and not as a supply of service under SAC No. 9899.

The Daman AAR pronounced the following rulings:

“In the present case against application dated 09.03.2018 of M/s. Temple Packaging Pvt. Ltd., behind Olive Healthcare. Hatiyawad, Village, Dabhel, Nani Daman, Advance Ruling is given that printing of Pamphlet/leaflet falls under the category of supply of service falling under SAC No. 9989. The case is disposed off accordingly.”

Daman AAAR : we hold that the CBIC Circular No. 11/11/2017-GST dated 20.10.2017 is very clear in distinguishing between the items. viz books, pamphlet etc mentioned in Para no. 4 and items like printed envelopes. letter cards, printed boxes. tissues. napkins, wall paper in Para no. 5. The argument of the appellant does not hold good and accordingly we are of the view that the supply made by [he appellant is rightly covered under Para no. 4 of the Circular.

Held :We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Advance Ruling Authority. This appeal is disposed off accordingly.

01/Daman/2019-20-AR dated 18.07.2019 View
56 Uttar Pradesh AAAR-GW-1006-2021-UP 29-September-2021, UP_AAAR_18/2021 1. M/s Lucknow Producers Cooperative Milk Union Ltd.

Advance Ruling No. and Date : Order No. UP ADRG 76/2021 dated 16.04.2021

Questions before the Uttar Pradesh Authority for Advance Ruling [‘UPAAR’], Goods and Service Tax :

GST liability on reimbursement of Employee Provided Fund & ESI.

Uttar Pradesh Authority for Advance Ruling, vide Order No. 76/2021 dated 16.04.2021 ruled that:

GST is liable to be paid @18% (9% COST and 9% SGST) on the reimbursement of EPF and ESI contribution as the same is liable to be included in the value of supply as per Section 15 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Uttar Pradesh AAAR : The impugned transactions are not in relation to the supply of goods or services or both undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the appellant and therefore, we are of the view, that it is outside the purview of mandate given to Advance Ruling Authority/AppeIIate Authority on Advance Ruling. The subject application cannot be admitted as per the provisions of Section 95 of the CGST Act and should have been rejected ab-initio by the Advance Ruling Authority. Hence without discussing the merits of the case. we reject the subject appeal as not being maintainable.

Held: The present appeal is rejected, as being non-maintainable as per the provision of law. 

UP_AAR_76_2021 dated 16.04.2021 View
57 Gujarat AAAR-GW-1068-2021-GJ 07-September-2021, GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2021/29 1. EDUCATIONAL INITIATIVE PVT LTD

Advance Ruling No. and Date : GUJ/GAAR/R/27/2020 dated 02.07.2020

Questions before the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling [‘GAAR’], Goods and Service Tax:

“Whether the educational assessment examination (ASSET) with its variants provided by the applicant to school/educational organization is exempted from payment of GST under Sr. No. 66(b)(iv) of the Not. No. 12/2017-CT (rate) dated 28.06.2017 and entry No. 69(b)(iv) of Not. No. 9/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as well as equivalent SGST Notification”.

The GAAR, vide Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/27/2020 dated 02.07.2020, inter-alia observed - 

Yes, exemption is available in view of the above discussion in respect of ASSET services provided to educational institution.

Gujarat AAAR : It is apparent that in case of ASSET, the Question papers are set and printed by the applicant, timings of ASSET are fixed by the applicant, answers given by the students are assessed by the applicant, based on which result and detailed analysis is given by the applicant. The subjects for which ASSET can be taken are also fixed by the applicant. All these facts lead to the only conclusion that ASSET is conducted by the applicant. Therefore, it cannot be said that ASSET is an examination conducted by the schools i.e. educational institution.

Held: We allow the appeal filed by the department, modify the Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/27/2020 dated 02.07.2020 of the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling and hold that ASSET (Assessment of Scholastic Skills through Educational Testing – with its variants) conducted by M/s. Educational Initiative Private Limited is not covered within Entry at Sr. No. 66(b)(iv) of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, as amended and corresponding Entry of Notification No. 12/2017-State Tax (Rate) dated 30.06.2017, as amended and hence not exempted from payment of Goods and Services Tax.

GUJ/GAAR/R/27/2020 dated 02.07.2020 View
58 Karnataka AAAR-GW-370-2021-KT 03-September-2021, KAR/AAAR/Appeal-8/2020-21 1. BEML Limited.

Advance Ruling No. and Date : KAR ADRG 20/2021 dated 06-04-2021

Questions before the Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling [‘KAAR’], Goods and Service Tax : 

1. Whether the supplies made by cost centres C, D, E and G to BMRCL are to be considered as independent supplies of goods and services depending upon the scope of the work and applicable GST at the rate of 18% for supply of services and at the rate of 5%/ 12% for supply of goods shall be levied and charged? Consequently, what will be the time of supply for each supplies made by the cost centres?

ii. Whether the supplies made by cost centres C, D, E and G to BMRCL are to be considered as 'composite supply' as defined under Section 2(30) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 9(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, with the supply of intermediate cars undertaken by. Cost Centre C as the principal supply on which GST at 12% shall be levied and charged? Consequently, what will be the classification and time of supply for the entire Contract considering supplies made by Cost Centre C as principal supply?

The Authority for Advance ruling arrived at the conclusion vide ruling No. KAR/ADRG 20/2021 dated 06th April 2021 as- 

The supplies made by the applicant under Cost Centres C, D, E and G form a composite supply and since the supply of intermediate cars is the principal supply, would be treated as the supply of intermediate cars as per section 8 of the CGST Act, 2017 and section 12 of the CGST Act, 2017 is applicable to the issues related to the time of supply.

Karnataka AAAR: The lower Authority has erred in interpreting the creation of cost centres as per the contract as artificial creations to enable cash flow. When interpreting the nature of a contract, the form of the agreement is not important, it is rather the substance which has to be seen. The parties may use any words they like to suit their intention and it is therefore imperative that the agreement may not be taken as it is but its nature/substance has to be seen to arrive at the correct conclusions. In this case, although a single contract has been made for supply of goods and services, the clear-cut demarcation of activities of supply of goods and supply of services to each Cost Centre clearly demonstrates the intention of the contracting parties that each of the cost centres C, D, E and G is an independent supply centre undertaking either a supply of goods or a supply of service. Hence, we are unable to subscribe to the views of the lower Authority and the Respondent that the supply of goods and services encompassed as per this contract are naturally bundled. The mere fact that a number of tasks have been entrusted to the Respondent through a single contract would not make it as 'composite supply' in terms of Section 2(30) of the CGST Act, 2017. We reiterate that the obligations of supplies envisaged in this contract are distinct and separable and hence the separate activities of supply of goods and supply of services have to be viewed independently on its own merits.

Held: We allow the appeal filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore South Division-1, South Commissionerate and set aside the ruling given by the Authority for Advance Ruling in KAR ADRG 20/2021 dated 6th April 2021 with regard to composite supply.

We hold that the supplies made by Cost Centres C, D, E and G to M/s BMRCL are to be considered as independent supplies of goods and services as indicated in the Table and rate of GST as applicable to the supply of goods and supply of service will apply.

No. KAR.ADRG 20/2021 View
59 Gujarat AAAR-GW-1067-2021-GJ 18-August-2021, GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2021/28 1. M/s. J K Papad Industries

Advance Ruling No. and Date : GUJ/GAAR/R/77/2020 dated 17.09.2020

Questions before the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling [‘GAAR’], Goods and Service Tax which were rules as :

1. Under which tariff Heading the product dealt in by the applicant i.e. PAPAD of different shapes and sizes are eligible to be classified?

Ans.  The product of different shape and sizes manufactured and supplied by applicant is “un-fried Fryums” and not “Papad” and is classifiable under Tariff item 21069099 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

2. What is the applicable rate of CGST and SGST on supply of such papad of different shapes and sizes.

Ans:  Goods and Services Tax rate of 18% (CGST 9% + GGST 9% or IGST 18%) is applicable to the product ‘Un-fried Fryums’ as per Sl. No. 23 of Schedule III of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-62017, as amended, issued under the CGST Act, 2017 and Notification No. 1/2017-State Tax (Rate), dated 30-6-2017, as amended, issued under the GGST Act, 2017 or IGST Act, 2017.

Gujarat AAAR: We are of the view that the appellant has obtained the Advance Ruling by submitting application of advance ruling with suppression of material facts or misrepresentation of facts, and the application was not eligible to be admitted in view of proviso to sub-section (2) of section 98 of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, in terms of Section 104 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the GGST Act, 2017, the advance ruling pronounced by the Gujarat Authority of Advance Ruling is liable to be declared as void ab-initio.

Held: We modify the Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/77/2020 dated 17.09.2020 of the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of M/s JKPapad Industries and declare it void ab-initio.

GUJ/GAAR/R/77/2020 dated 17.09.2020 View
60 Odisha AAAR-GW-231-2021-OD 27-July-2021, 02/ODISHA-AAAR/Appeal/2021-22 1. M/s Pioneer Bakers

Advance Ruling No. and Date : Order No. 06/ODISHA-AAR/2020-21 dated 09.03.2021

Questions before the Odisha Authority for Advance Ruling [‘ODAAR’], Goods and Service Tax which were answered as:

Q.(a) Whether supply of Cakes, bakery items, ice creams, chocolates, drinks and other eatable products prepared at the premises of the applicant and supplied to the customers from the counter with the facility to consume the same in the air-conditioned premises itself covered under the restaurant services?

Ans: Yes, answer is in the affirmative .

Q(b) Whether supply of items such as birthday stickers, candles, birthday caps, snow sprays etc related items which are essentially used in birthday celebration can be classified as Composite Supply defined under Section 2 (30) of the CGST Act, 2017 and Section 2 (30) of the OGST Act, 2017 wherein the principal supply of goods consists of bakery items, chocolates while the supply of services include the supply of air conditioned place to sit and to celebrate birthday?

Ans: The answer is in the ‘Negative”.

Q(c) Whether the sale of handmade chocolates which are manufactured in the workshop of the Applicant and are utilised for the purpose of providing other services such as shakes, brownies and are also retailed by packing in different containers as per the choice of the customer will be covered under the restaurant services?

Ans: Yes, answer is in the affirmative.

Q(d) What is the nature and rate of tax applicable to the following items supplied from the premises of the Bakery shop of the applicant?

(i) Items such as Birthday caps, knife, decorative items which are bundled along with the cakes and are utilised by the Customers in the premises of the outlets.

Ans: Rates applicable as per Notification No. 01/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended from time to time.

(ii) Items such as Birthday caps, knife, decorative items which are bundled along with the cakes and are taken away by the Customers from the outlets.

Ans: Rates applicable as per Notification No.01/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended from time to time.

(iii) Items such as chocolate, cookies which are prepared in the nearby workshop of the applicant and then processed / customized in the outlets of the applicant before selling to the customers.

(iv) Items such as chocolate, cookies which are prepared in the nearby workshop of the applicant and then processed / customized in the outlet as per the choice and consumed in the premises itself.

Ans: The supply of the items as mentioned in Clause (iii) & (iv) from the premises of the Bakery shop of the applicant qualifies as ‘composite supply’ under Section 2(30) of the CGST Act. The said composite supply shall be deemed to be a supply of service as per the Entry 6(b) of Schedule II to the CGST Act and more specifically the ‘Restaurant Service’ and rate of tax is 5% without any input tax credit (2.5% for CGST and 2.5% for SGST).

(e) Supposing, the applicant’s firm is covered under the Composite Scheme then in such cases what will be the tax liability charged on goods which are tax free without opting for composite scheme such as bread etc.

Ans: Since the applicant is a manufacturer of ‘Ice Creams’, he is not eligible for `Composition Scheme’.

(f) Suppose, the applicant’s firm is covered under composite Scheme, then in such circumstances whether the products which are prepared in the workshop but are sold only after certain customizations in the outlets will also be covered under the composite scheme or not?

Ans: Since the applicant is a manufacturer of ‘Ice Creams’, he is not eligible for `Composition Scheme’.

Odisha AAAR : We are in view that the establishments/outlets/premises of the applicant cannot be treated as restaurant. Consequently, the activities carried out by the applicant from their premises/outlets cannot be considered as restaurant Service.

 

Held: (a) The appeal made by the Jurisdictional Officer is allowed;

(b) The ruling made by the Authority for Advance Ruling, Odisha vide their Order No.06/Odisha-AAR/2020-21 dt.09.03.2021 against the Question Nos. (a), (c), (d)(iii) & (d)(iv) are set aside; and

(c) The items sold by the applicant M/s. Pioneer Bakers will attract the GST tariff rate as individual items.

06/ODISHA-AAR/2020-21 dated 09.03.2021 View
61 Gujarat AAAR-GW-1066-2021-GJ 20-July-2021, GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2021/27 1. M/s. J K Snacks Industries

Advance Ruling No. and Date : GUJ/GAAR/R/78/2020 dated 17.09.2020.

Questions before the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling [‘GAAR’], Goods and Service Tax which were answered as:

1. Under which tariff Heading the product dealt in by the applicant i.e. PAPAD of different shapes and sizes are eligible to be classified?

Ans. The product of different shape and sizes manufactured and supplied by applicant in “un-fried Fryums” and not “Papad” and is classifiable under Tariff item 21069099 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

2. What is the applicable rate of CGST and SGST on supply of such papad of different shapes and sizes.

Answer: Goods and Services Tax rate of 18% (CGST 9% + GGST 9% or IGST 18%) is applicable to the product ‘Un-fried Fryums’ as per Sl. No. 23 of Schedule III of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-62017, as amended, issued under the CGST Act, 2017 and Notification No. 1/2017-State Tax (Rate), dated 30-6-2017, as amended, issued under the GGST Act, 2017 or IGST Act, 2017.

Gujarat AAAR: We are of the view that the appellant has obtained the Advance Ruling by submitting application of advance ruling with suppression of material facts or misrepresentation of facts, and the application was not eligible to be admitted in view of proviso to sub-section (2) of section 98 of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, in terms of Section 104 of CGST Act, 2017, and the GGST Act, 2017, the advance ruling pronounced by the Gujarat Authority of Advance Ruling is liable to be declared as void ab-initio.

Held: We modify the Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/78/2020 dated 17.09.2020 of the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of M/s J. K. Snacks Industries and declare it void ab-initio.

GUJ/GAAR/R/78/2020 dated 17.09.2020 View
62 Gujarat AAAR-GW-1065-2021-GJ 20-July-2021, GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2021/26 1. M/s. J K Food Industries

Advance Ruling No. and Date : GUJ/GAAR/R/76/2020 dated 17.09.2020.

Questions before the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling [‘GAAR’], Goods and Service Tax which were answered as:

1. Under which tariff Heading the product dealt in by the applicant i.e. PAPAD of different shapes and sizes are eligible to be classified?

Answer. The product of different shape and sizes manufactured and supplied by applicant in “un-fried Fryums” and not “Papad” and is classifiable under Tariff item 21069099 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

2. What is the applicable rate of CGST and SGST on supply of such papad of different shapes and sizes.

Answer: Goods and Services Tax rate of 18% (CGST 9% + GGST 9% or IGST 18%) is applicable to the product ‘Un-fried Fryums’ as per Sl. No. 23 of Schedule III of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-62017, as amended, issued under the CGST Act, 2017 and Notification No. 1/2017-State Tax (Rate), dated 30-6-2017, as amended, issued under the GGST Act, 2017 or IGST Act, 2017.

Gujarat AAAR: We are of the view that the appellant has obtained the Advance Ruling by submitting application of advance ruling with suppression of material facts or misrepresentation of facts, and the application was not eligible to be admitted in view of proviso to sub-section (2) of section 98 of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, in terms of Section 104 of CGST Act, 2017, and the GGST Act, 2017, the advance ruling pronounced by the Gujarat Authority of Advance Ruling is liable to be declared as void ab-initio.

Held: we modify the Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/76/2020 dated 17.09.2020 of the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of M/s J. K. Food Industries and declare it void ab-initio.

GUJ/GAAR/R/76/2020 dated 17.09.2020 View
63 Gujarat AAAR-GW-1064-2021-GJ 20-July-2021, GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2021/25 1. M/s. G.B.Agro Industries

Advance Ruling No. and Date : GUJ/GAAR/R/71/2020 dated 17.09.2020

Questions before the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling [‘GAAR’], Goods and Service Tax :

Classification of the “Organic Manure”, “Bio-fertilizers”, “Granulated Nutrient Mixture” and “Phosphatic Rich Fertilizers” manufactured by them and its HSN code?

The GAAR vide order No. GUJ/GAAR/R/71/2020 dated 17.09.2020 classified the aforementioned products as under:

(1) ‘Organic manure’ was classified under Chapter sub-heading No.31059090 on which GST liability was 5% (2.5%SGST + 2.5%CGST).

(2) ‘Bio-fertilizers’ were classified under Chapter sub-heading No.30029030 on which GST liability was 12% (6%SGST + 6%CGST).

(3) ‘Nitrogeneous mixture fertilizers’ were classified under Chapter subheading No.31029090 on which GST liability was 5% (2.5%SGST + 2.5%CGST).

(4) ‘Mixture of fertilizers’ was classified under Chapter sub-heading No.31059090 on which GST liability was 5% (2.5%SGST + 2.5%CGST).

Gujarat AAAR: We decide and conclude that the aforementioned two products namely Phosphate Solubilising Bacteria and Potassium mobilising Bio-fertilizers manufactured and supplied by the appellant are classifiable under Chapter subheading No.31059090 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975(51 of 1975) and liable to GST at 5% in terms of Sl.No.182D of Schedule-I of Notification No.01/2017-Central Tax(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended from time to time). We would also like to emphasize here that the classification of the aforementioned products is entirely based on the composition of inputs as given by the appellant and any alteration/change in the composition of the inputs would also result in alteration of the classification of the aforementioned products.

Held: we modify the Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R /71/2020 dated 17.09.2020 issued by the GAAR in respect of ‘Bio-fertilizers’, by holding that the two products namely ‘Phosphate Solubilising Bacteria’ and ‘Potassium mobilising Bio-fertilizers’ manufactured and supplied by the appellant M/s. G.B. Agro Industries, Bharuch are classifiable under Chapter sub-heading No.31059090 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975(51 of 1975) and liable to GST at 5% in terms of Sl.No.182D of Schedule-I of Notification No.01/2017-Central Tax(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended from time to time) for the reasons discussed hereinabove. Also, the classification of the aforementioned products is entirely based on the composition of inputs as given by the appellant and any alteration/change in the composition of the inputs would also result in alteration of the classification of the aforementioned products.

GUJ/GAAR/R/71/2020 dated 17.09.2020 View
64 Gujarat AAAR-GW-1063-2021-GJ 06-July-2021, GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2021/24 1. M/s Shivam Agro Industries

Advance Ruling No. and Date : GUJ/GAAR/R/79/2020 dated 17.09.2020

Questions before the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling [‘GAAR’], Goods and Service Tax :

(i) Whether the products ‘Zn EDTA’ (Zinc Ethylenediamine Tetra Acetic Acid) and ‘Fe EDTA’ (Iron Ethylenediamine Tetra Acetic Acid) being supplied by the applicant are classifiable under Chapter Heading 2833, 2921, 3105 or 3808 or any other Chapter Heading of the Customs Tariff Act, 1962;

(ii) Whether the products ‘Zn EDTA’ (Zinc Ethylenediamine Tetra Acetic Acid) and ‘Fe EDTA’ (Iron Ethylenediamine Tetra Acetic Acid) being supplied by the applicant are covered under S. No. 182D of Schedule – I, S. No. 56 of Schedule – II, S. No. 40, 45 or 87 of Schedule-III, or any other S. No. of any of the Schedules of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended) and corresponding Notification No. 1/2017-State Tax (Rate) dated 30.06.2017 (as amended) and Notification No. 1/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended); and

(iii) Whether the supply of products ‘Zn EDTA’ (Zinc Ethylenediamine Tetra Acetic Acid) and ‘Fe EDTA’ (Iron Ethylenediamine Tetra Acetic Acid) by the applicant to the recipient, who is not registered under the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, will have any impact on the applicability of particular S. No. of Schedule of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended) and corresponding Notification No. 1/2017-State Tax (Rate) dated 30.06.2017 (as amended) and Notification No. 1/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended), as determined under question No. (ii) above, on supply of such ‘Zn EDTA’ (Zinc Ethylenediamine Tetra Acetic Acid) and ‘Fe EDTA’ (Iron Ethylenediamine Tetra Acetic Acid).

If yes, what would be the correct S. No. and Schedule of aforesaid Notification No. in case of supply of products ‘Zn EDTA’ (Zinc Ethylenediamine Tetra Acetic Acid) and ‘Fe EDTA’ (Iron Ethylenediamine Tetra Acetic Acid) by the applicant to the recipient, who is not registered under the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985.

The GAAR, vide Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/79/2020 dated 17.09.2020, has ruled as follows –

Answer 1 : The products, viz. “Zn EDTA” and “Fe EDTA” manufactured and supplied by the applicant are classifiable under HSN 3824 99 90 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Answer 2 : The products, `Zn EDTA' and 'Fe EDTA', being supplied by the applicant are covered under Sl. No. 56 of Schedule-II of Notification No.1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended) and corresponding Notification No.1/2017State Tax (Rate) dated 30.06.2017(as amended) and Notification No.1/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended), attracting GST @ 12% (6% SGST +6% CGST).

Answer 3 : Answered in Negative, as discussed above.

Gujarat AAAR: We, hold that the products ‘Zn EDTA’ and Fe EDTA’ being supplied by the appellant are covered under Sl. No. 56 of Schedule-II of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, as amended (and corresponding Notification issued under the GGST Act, 2017) attracting Goods and Services Tax @ 12% (CGST 6% + SGST 6%).

Held : We confirm the Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/79/2020 dated 17.09.2020 to the extent it has been appealed, by holding that the products ‘Zn EDTA’ and ‘Fe EDTA’ being supplied by M/s. Shivam Agro Industries are classifiable under heading 38.24 (Tariff Item 3824 99 90) of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and are covered under Sl. No. 56 of Schedule-II of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, as amended and Notification No. 1/2017-State Tax (Rate) dated 30.06.2017, as amended, attracting Goods and Services Tax @ 12% (CGST 6% + SGST 6%).

GUJ/GAAR/R/79/2020 dated 17.09.2020 View
65 Gujarat AAAR-GW-1062-2021-GJ 06-July-2021, GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2021/23 1. M/s.Global Vectra Helicorp Limited

Advance Ruling No. and Date : GUJ/GAAR/R/21/2020 dated 02.07.2020

Questions before the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling [‘GAAR’], Goods and Service Tax :

Whether in terms of the valuation provisions under GST legislation, amount recovered as reimbursement (at actual) by the applicant from the customer, for the fuel procured on behalf of the Customer is required to be included in the value of services provided by the Applicant?”

The GAAR, vide Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/21/2020 dated 02.07.2020, has ruled as follows –

In terms of the valuation provisions under GST legislation, amount recovered as reimbursement (at actual) by the applicant M/s. Global Vectra Helicorp ltd. from the customer, for the fuel procured on behalf of the Customer is required to be included in the value of services provided by the Applicant.

Gujarat AAAR : The fact remains that the value of supply needs to be determined in accordance with the statutory provisions of the GST Acts, 2017 and rules framed there under, which have been elaborately discussed hereinabove, and the valuation of supply is not dependent on the accounting treatment given to any expenditure or cost, hence their contention cannot be accepted.

Held: We confirm the Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/21/2020 dated 02.07.2020 to the extent it has been appealed before us and hold that –

In terms of the valuation provisions under GST legislation, amount recovered as reimbursement by the appellant M/s. Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd. from the customer, for the fuel procured for use in the helicopter provided on rent to customer is required to be included in the value of services provided by the Appellant.

The appeal filed by M/s. Global Vectra Helicorp limited, Airports Authority of India, 8B, Porbandar Airport, Porbandar, Gujarat-360575, is rejected.

GUJ/GAAR/R/21/2020 dated 02.07.2020 View
66 Uttar Pradesh AAAR-GW-851-2021-UP 02-July-2021, UP_AAAR_17_2021 1. M/S JAYESH A DALAL

Advance Ruling No. and Date : Order No. UP ADRG 72/2021 dated 21.01.2021.

Questions before the Uttar Pradesh Authority for Advance Ruling [‘UPAAR’], Goods and Service Tax :

(i) Whether the Project Development Service (i.e. Detailed Project Report Service) and Project Management Consultancy services ('PMCS') provided by the applicant to the recipient under the Contract from State Urban Development Authority (herein after referred as “SUDA”) and the Project Management Consultancy services ('PMC') under the Contract for PMAY would qualify as an activity in relation to function entrusted to Panchayat or Municipality under Article 243G or Article 243W respectively, of the Constitution of India?

(ii) If answer to first question is in affirmative then, whether such services provided by the applicant would qualify as Pure services (excluding works contract service or composite supplies involving supply of any goods) as provided in serial number 3 of Notification No. 12/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28 June, 2017, as amended (S. No. 3A) by Notification No. 2/2018- Central Tax (Rate) dated 25 January, 2018 issued under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('CGST') and corresponding Notifications No. - KA.N.I.-2-843/X1- 9 (47) / 17-UP. Act-1 - 2017 - Order - (10) - 2017 Lucknow, dated June 30, 2017 issued under Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 ('UPGST Act'), where the Project cost includes the cost of service rendered along with reimbursement of cost of procurement of goods for rendering such service, and, thus, be eligible for exemption from levy of CGST and UPGST, respectively.

The Uttar Pradesh Authority for Advance Ruling, vide Order No. 72/2021 dated 21.01.2021 ruled that:

(i)  Project Development Service provided by the applicant to the State Urban Development Authority and the Project Management Consultancy services ('PMC') under the Contract for PMAY will not qualify as an activity in relation to function entrusted to Panchayat or Municipality under Article 243G or Article 243W respectively, of the Constitution of India.

(ii) As the answer to first question is in negative, question number 2 becomes redundant.

Uttar Pradesh AAAR: We are of the opinion that services mentioned in the contract would qualify as Pure Service (excluding works contract service or other composite supplies involving supply of any goods)” as provided in serial number 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28 June, 2017, as amended by Notification No. 2/2018- Central Tax (Rate) dated 25 January, 2018 issued under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('CGST') and corresponding Notifications No.- KA.N.I.-2-843/X1- 9 (47) / 17-UP. Act-1 - 2017 - Order - (10) – 2017 Lucknow, dated June 30, 2017 issued under Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 ('UPGST Act'), where the Project cost includes the cost of service rendered along with reimbursement of cost of procurement of goods for rendering such service, and, thus, be eligible for exemption from levy of CGST and UPGST, respectively.

Held: In view of the above discussion, we hold that the Services rendered by the appellant to the State Urban Development Agency, Uttar Pradesh (SUDA), and for PMAY, are in relation to functions entrusted to Municipalities under Article 243W and to Panchayats under Article 243G of the Constitution of India and such services would qualify as Pure Service (excluding works contract service or other composite supplies involving supply of any goods).

UP_AAR_72_2020 dated 21.01.2021 View
67 Tamil Nadu AAAR-GW-220-2021-TN 30-June-2021, TN/AAAR/17 & 18 /2021(AR) 1. M/s NEW TIRUPUR AREA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED

Advance Ruling No. and Date : Order No. 5/ARA/2021 dated 26.02.2021

Questions before the Tamilnadu Authority for Advance Ruling [‘TNAAR’], Goods and Service Tax :

a. Whether the following activities will suffer GST or not

Main business activities:

a) Sale of water

b) Sewage treatment charges

c) Consultancy Services such Detailed Project Report (DPR), Project Management Consultancy (PMC) and any other infrastructure related consultancy to TCMC / GoTN

Incidental to main business activities

d) Interest on receivable on delayed payments

e) Disconnection Charges

f) Reconnection charges

g) Permanent disconnection charges

h) Cheque Bouncing charges

i) Non-Revenue - Service provided to Customer on New Connection works Concept of No Loss No Gain, New Connection Shifting and other works

b. The company abstracts raw water from river Cauvery and supplies to users in potable condition, whether the water treatment process undertaken by the company would fall within the meaning of the word “purification”

c. Whether the GST Registration Certificate require amendment

The AAR pronounced the following rulings:

a. The applicant not being the class of persons specified in Notification No. 14/2017-C.T.(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended, they are not eligible for the said Notification as discussed in Para 10.2.

b. The activity of Sewage offtake and treatment extended to Tirupur Municipal Corporation as per the CA is exempt under SI.No.3 of Notification No. 12/2017- C.T.(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 for the reasons discussed in Para 11.3.

c. The Consultancy Services rendered by the applicant to Tiruppur City Municipal Corporation in respect of the Project- Construction Management and Supervision Consulting Service to assist Project ULBs - Tiruppur City Municipal Corporation exempt under SI.No.3 of Notification No. 12/2017-C.T.(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 for the reasons discussed in Para 11.4 .

d. In respect of the activities incidental to main business activities, it is ruled as under :

i. Interest on receivable on delayed payments being charges received for ‘Agreeing to tolerate an act’ classifiable under SAC 999794 is taxable @ 9% CGST and 9% SGST as per Sl.No. 35 of Notification No. 11/2017-C.T.(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 read with Sl.No. 35 of Notification No. II (2)/CTR/532(d-14)/2017 vide G.O. (Ms.)No.72 dated 29.06.2017 as amended for the reasons discussed in Para 13.1(a).

ii. Cheque Bouncing Charges being charges received for ‘Agreeing to tolerate an act’ classifiable under SAC 999794 is taxable @ 9% CGST and 9% SGST as per Sl.No. 35 of Notification No. 11/2017- C.T.(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 read with Sl.No. 35 of Notification No. II (2)/CTR/532(d-14)/2017 vide G.O. (Ms.)No.72 dated 29.06.2017 as amended for the reasons discussed in Para 13.1(b) .

iii. New connection works executed as per CA for TCMC, the established asset is accounted as their assets are not taxable being self-service for the reasons discussed in para 13. l(c ) .

iv. Connection/ Reconnection/ Disconnection/ Permanent Disconnection Charges are charges received for the services of ‘Water Distribution Services’ classifiable under SAC 9969 and is taxable @ 9% CGST and 9% SGST as per SI.No. 13 of Notification No. 11/2017- C.T.(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 read with SI.No. 13 of Notification No. II (2)/CTR/532(d-14)/2017 vide G.O. (Ms.)No.72 dated 29.06.2017 as amended for the reasons discussed in Para 13.1 (d).

Tamilnadu AAAR: The reference made by the AAR on the divergent views as well as the ruling sought by the appellant, is answered as affirmative with regard to exemption available to the supply of potable water made by the appellant under notfn. No. 2/2017-CT (R) ibid.

With regard to the other questions raised in the appeal, we concur with the reasoning and the ruling given by the AAR and therefore, the appeal by the appellant is not sustainable.

Held: 1. The reference made by the AAR and the ruling sought by the appellant in column 17(a) in the prayer in Form ARA-2 dated 9/4/2021 is answered as per Para 7.6 for the reasons discussed.

2. For reasons discussed above, the subject appeal is disposed of accordingly as all the questions raised by the appellant are answered as per AAR’s ruling.

5/ARA/2021 dated 26.02.2021 View
68 Tamil Nadu AAAR-GW-219-2021-TN 30-June-2021, TN/AAAR/16/2021(AR) 1. M/s BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED

Advance Ruling No. and Date : Order No.08/ARA/2020 dated 25.02.2020

Questions before the Tamilnadu Authority for Advance Ruling [‘TNAAR’], Goods and Service Tax :

Whether UHT Sterilized Flavoured Milk is classifiable under Chapter 4 (Tariff Heading 0402 which covers ‘Milk... containing added sugar or other sweetening matter...’ or alternatively, Tariff Heading 0404 which covers ‘Other’, i.e. ‘products consisting of natural milk constituents, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter, not elsewhere specified or included’)

The Original Authority has ruled as follows:

UHT Sterilized Flavoured Milk marketed under the brand name ‘Britannia Winkin’ Cow Thick Shake’ by the applicant is not classifiable under the Tariff heading ‘0402 /0404” but classifiable under CTH 22029930.

Tamilnadu AAAR : We find no infirmity in the findings of the lower authority that the product in hand do not fall under Chapter 4 of the Customs Tariff, though the product is categorized under Dairy products and analogues under FSSAI Regulation 2011.

Held: We hold that UHT Sterilized Flavoured Milk marketed under the brand name ‘Britannia Winkin’ Cow Thick Shake’ by the appellant is not classifiable under the Tariff heading ‘0402 /0404” but classifiable under CTH 22029930 as held by the Lower Authority. The subject appeal is disposed of accordingly.

08/ARA/2020 dated 25.02.2020 View
69 Tamil Nadu AAAR-GW-217-2021-TN 30-June-2021, TN/AAAR/15/2021(AR) 1. ARAVIND DRILLERS

Advance Ruling No. and Date : Order No. 39/ARA/2020 dated 18.12.2020

Questions before the Tamilnadu Authority for Advance Ruling [‘TNAAR’], Goods and Service Tax :

(i) Whether the following supply of service provided by the appellant are in relation to agricultural operations directly in connection with raising of agricultural produce:

a. Drilling of Borewells for supply of water for agricultural operations like cultivation including seeding, planting and ploughing.

b. Letting out compressors for pumping of water from the borewells to the agricultural fields.

(ii) If the answer to the above question is affirmative, whether the said service are covered by the entry Sl.No.54 of Notification 12/2017 CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017

The Tamilnadu AAR pronounced the following rulings:

(i) Drilling of Borewells for supply of water in agricultural land is not 'Support Service for agriculture classifiable under 'SAC 9986' for the reasons stated in para 8.3

(ii) Letting out of compressors for pumping of water from the borewells to the agricultural field is not 'Support Service for agriculture classifiable under 'SAC 9986' for the reasons stated in para 8.4

(iii) The above two activities of the applicant are not 'Support service for agriculture' classifiable under SAC 9986 and therefore the exemption at Sl.No.54 of Notification No. 12/2017-C.T. (Rate) is not applicable to the above activities of the applicant.

Tamilnadu AAAR: We do not find any infirmity in the reasoning of the Advance Ruling Authority with regard to the impugned ruling, in the light of our additional reasoning as above. With regard to compressor also, we do not differ from the AAR's ruling.

Held: We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Advance Ruling Authority in this matter. The subject appeal is disposed of accordingly.

39/ARA/2020 dated 18.12.2020 View
70 Tamil Nadu AAAR-GW-216-2021-TN 30-June-2021, TN/AAAR/14/2021(AR) 1. VALLALAR BOREWELLS

Advance Ruling No. and Date : Order No. 40 /ARA /2020 dated 18.12.2020

Questions before the Tamilnadu Authority for Advance Ruling [‘TNAAR’], Goods and Service Tax :

(i) Whether the following supply of service provided by the appellant are in relation to agricultural operations directly in connection with raising of agricultural produce:

a. Drilling of Borewells for supply of water for agricultural operations like cultivation including seeding, planting and ploughing.

b. Letting out compressors for pumping of water from the borewells to the agricultural fields.

(ii) If the answer to the above question is affirmative, whether the said service are covered by the entry SI.No.54 of Notification 12/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017

The Tamilnadu AAR pronounced the following rulings:

(i) Drilling of Borewells for supply of water in agricultural land is not ‘Support Service for agriculture classifiable under ‘SAC 9986’ for the reasons stated in para 8.3

(ii) Letting out of compressors for pumping of water from the borewells to the agricultural field is not ‘Support Service for agriculture classifiable under ‘SAC 9986’ for the reasons stated in para 8.4

(iii) The above two activities of the applicant are not ‘Support service for agriculture’ classifiable under SAC 9986 and therefore the exemption at SI.No.54 of Notification No. 12/2017-C.T. (Rate) is not applicable to the above activities of the applicant.

Tamilnadu AAAR: We do not find any infirmity in the reasoning of the Advance Ruling Authority with regard to the impugned ruling, in the light of our additional reasoning as above. With regard to compressor also, we do not differ from the AAR’s ruling.

Held: We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Advance Ruling Authority in this matter. The subject appeal is disposed of accordingly.

40 /ARA /2020 dated 18.12.2020 View
71 Karnataka AAAR-GW-162-2021-KT 30-June-2021, KAR/AAAR/Appeal-7/2020-21 1. Wipro Enterprises Private Limited.

Advance Ruling No. and Date : KAR ADRG 08/2021 dated: 26th February 2021.

Questions before the Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling [‘KAAR’], Goods and Service Tax :

“What is the appropriate classification of the hand sanitizer for the purpose of GST?

What is the applicable rate of GST?”

The Tamilnadu AAR vide its order KAR ADRG No 08/2021 dated 26th February 2021 held as under:

“The hand sanitizers are classifiable under Heading 3808 under the Customs Tariff Act.

The hand sanitizers are liable to tax at the rate of 9% under CGST Act and at the rate of 9% under the KGST Act.”

Karnataka AAAR: As regards the rate of tax on alcohol-based hand sanitizer, the goods falling under Chapter Heading 3808 attract a tax rate of 9% CGST and 9% SGST in terms of entry Sl.No 87 of Schedule III of Notification No 11/2017 CT (R) dated 28-06-2017.

Held : We uphold the order NO.KAR ADRG 08/2021 dated 26/02/2021 passed by the Advance Ruling Authority and the appeal filed by the appellant M/s. Wipro Enterprises Pvt Ltd, stands dismissed on all accounts.

NO.KAR.ADRG 08/2021 View
72 Karnataka AAAR-GW-161-2021-KT 30-June-2021, KAR/AAAR/Appeal-6/2020-21 1. M/S Ce-Chem Pharmaceuticals Private Limited

Advance Ruling No. and Date : KAR ADRG 07/2021 dated: 26th February 2021.

Questions before the Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling [‘KAAR’], Goods and Service Tax :

“What is the appropriate classification of the hand sanitizer for the purpose of GST?

What is the applicable rate of GST?”

The Tamilnadu AAR vide its order KAR ADRG No 07/2021 dated 26th February 2021 held as under:

“Isopropyl rubbing alcohol IP and Chlorhexidine Gluconate & Isopropyl Alcohol solution merit classification under Chapter Heading 3808 and attract 18% GST in terms of entry no 87 of Schedule III of Notification No 01/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28-06-2017.”

Karnataka AAAR: As regards the rate of tax on Isopropyl Rubbing Alcohol and Chlorhexidine Gluconate and Isopropyl Alcohol solution, the goods falling under Chapter Heading 3808 attract a tax rate of 9% CGST and 9% SGST in terms of entry Sl.No 87 of Schedule III of Notification No 11/2017 CT (R) dated 28-06-2017.

Held : We uphold the order NO.KAR ADRG 07/2021 dated 26/02/2021 passed by the Advance Ruling Authority and the appeal filed by the appellant M/s. Ce-Chem Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd, stands dismissed on all accounts.

NO.KAR.ADRG 07/2021 View
73 Tamil Nadu AAAR-GW-215-2021-TN 29-June-2021, TN/AAAR/13/2021(AR) 1. SI AIR SPRINGS PRIVATE LIMITED

Advance Ruling No. and Date : Order No.01/ARA/2021 dated 24.02.2021

Questions before the Tamilnadu Authority for Advance Ruling [‘TNAAR’], Goods and Service Tax :

Whether “Air Springs” manufactured and supplied by the appellant will be correctly classifiable under Tariff heading 40169990 as opposed to Tariff heading 8708 9900 and attract GST at the rate of 18%.

The Original Authority has ruled as follows:

Air Springs” Manufactured and supplied by the applicant are rightly classified under CTH 8708 and more specifically under CTH 8708 8000”

Tamilnadu AAAR : The invoice of the competing manufactures were provided but the inputs used, process undertaken, or any test reports to establish the similarities or that the receivers are the same buyers are not produced. However, the ruling extended is applicable only to the person who sought the same and on going through the submissions, the classification of the product has been extended and done so.

Held: We hold that Air Springs manufactured by the appellant is classifiable under CTH 8708 as rightly held by the Lower Authority. The subject appeal is disposed of accordingly.

01/ARA/2021 dated 24.02.2021 View
74 Haryana AAAR-GW-18-2021-HR 28-June-2021, HAR/AAAR/2019-20/02 1. BMW India Pvt. Ltd.

Advance Ruling No. and Date : HAR/HAAR/R/2018-19/17 dated 09.10.2018.

Questions before the Haryana Authority for Advance Ruling [‘HAAR’], Goods and Service Tax :

“Whether the Applicant unit is entitled to avail Input Tax Credit (ITC) of IGST and Compensation Cess paid on receipt of cars (on stock transfer basis) for use in relation to specified business activities and thereafter onwards supply to dealers after use by the Applicant unit for a limited period of time?”

The Haryana Advance Ruling Authority (AAR) gave following Rulings on the above mentioned Question:

In the backdrop of Discussion and Findings in the foregoing Paras, the Applicant is not entitled to avail input tax credit on motor vehicles put to use as per their submissions made in Para 5 above.”

Haryana AAAR: We observe that in the very first demonstration run demo car loses the character of the new motor vehicle and demo vehicles is sold akin to second hand goods and which is different from new Vehicle and accordingly treated differently under. GST law, so the demo car is not an input.

Held: So it appears that the BMW Vehicles received by the Appellant under stock transfer have never been received with the intent to simply 'further supply of such motor vehicles/'sell as such'. Input Tax Credit on these vehicles, thus, cannot be allowed.

On the same rationale, the input credit of the Services of repair/ insurance/ maintenance used in respect of said vehicles with seating capacity up to 13 passengers, cannot be allowed.

HAR/HAAR/R/2018-19/17 dated 09.10.2018 View
75 Haryana AAAR-GW-17-2021-HR 28-June-2021, HAR/AAAR/2019-20/03 1. M/s Platinum Motocorp LLP.

Advance Ruling No. and Date : HAR/HAAR/R/2018-19/40 dated 01.03.2019

Questions before the Haryana Authority for Advance Ruling [‘HAAR’], Goods and Service Tax :

“Whether Input Tax Credit (ITC) can be availed on such Capital Goods (demo cars) and set off against output tax payable under GST.”

“Whether Input Tax Credit (ITC) can be availed on ancillary input services such as insurance and repair and maintenance availed in respect of demo cars.”

The Advance Ruling Authority (AAR) gave following Rulings on the abovementioned Questions:

So in the light of above discussion the Ruling of the Authority on the questions raised in the application is as under:-

“The Goods and Services Tax paid on the purchase of demo vehicles cannot be availed as Input Tax Credit and set off against output tax payable under the GST.

No Input Tax Credit can be availed on the ancillary Input Services such as Insurance and Repair & Maintenance in respect of above-mentioned vehicles.”

Haryana AAAR: As regards to the Applicant's alternative contention that the ITC may be allowed as Input, we have observed that in the very first demonstration run demo car loses the character of the new motor vehicle and demo vehicles is sold akin to second hand goods and which is different from new Vehicle and accordingly treated differently under GST law, so the demo car is not an input.

So it appears that the Demo Vehicles received by the Appellant have never been received with the intent to simply 'further supply/ sell' as such. Input Tax Credit on these vehicles, thus, cannot be allowed.

On the same rationale, under Section 17(5)(ab), the credit of the input services of repair/ insurance/ maintenance used in respect of said vehicles with seating capacity up to 13 passengers, cannot be allowed.

Held: We therefore upheld the order passed by Advance Ruling Authority.

HAR/HAAR/R/2018-19/40 dated 01.03.2019 View
76 Gujarat AAAR-GW-1061-2021-GJ 28-June-2021, GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2021/22 1. M/s. Apar Industries ltd

Advance Ruling No. and Date : GUJ/GAAR/R/91/2020 dated 17.09.2020.

Questions before the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling [‘GAAR’], Goods and Service Tax and answers to them are: 

Q. Whether the applicability or determination of liability to pay Tax on our said goods at 5% GST rate is legally correct and in order in terms of Schedule-I of Notification No.1/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) or not?”

Gujarat Authority of Advance Ruling vide Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/91/2020 dated 17.09.2020 has ruled that:

The applicant M/s. Apar Industries limited, Valsad is not eligible to avail the benefit of GST @5% applicable as per Entries 250 and 252 of Schedule-I of Notification No.01/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28th June, 2017.

Gujarat AAAR: We, conclude that the marine pressure tight cables and non-pressure tight cables manufactured and supplied by the applicant to the Indian Navy are essential and integral parts of the submarine warship and hence the benefit of reduced rate of GST of 5% is available to the appellant as per Sr. No. 252 of Notification No.01/2017-Integrated Tax(Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Held: The appellant M/s. Apar Industries limited, Valsad is eligible to avail the benefit of GST @5% applicable as per Entries 252 of Schedule-I of Notification No.01/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28th June, 2017

GUJ/GAAR/R/91/2020 dated 17.09.2020 View
77 Gujarat AAAR-GW-1060-2021-GJ 28-June-2021, GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2021/19 1. M/s. Piyush Jayantilal Dobaria (Jay Khodiyar Agency)

Advance Ruling No. and Date : GUJ/GAAR/R/60/2020 dated 30.7.2020

Questions before the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling [‘GAAR’], Goods and Service Tax : 

Q. Under which tariff Heading PAPAD of different shapes and sizes manufactured/ supplied by the applicant would attract CGST and SGST?

The product ‘Un-fried Fryums’ manufactured and supplied by applicant is classifiable under Tariff Item 2106 90 99 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Goods and Services Tax rate of 18% (CGST 9% + GGST 9% or IGST 18%) is applicable to the product ‘Un-fried Fryums’ as per Sl. No. 23 of Schedule III of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017, as amended, issued under the CGST Act, 2017 and Notification No. 1/2017-State Tax (Rate), dated 30-6-2017, as amended, issued under the GGST Act, 2017 or IGST Act, 2017.

The GAAR ruled as follows :-

The product ?different shapes and sizes Papad? involved in the present case merit classification under Tariff heading No. 19059040 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and chargeable to NIL rate of Goods and Services Tax as per Sl. No. 96 of Notification No. 02/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and Notification No. 02/2017-IGST (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Gujarat AAAR: We hold that the product ‘different shapes and sizes Papad’ involved in the present case merit classification under Tariff heading No. 19059040 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. As we have already held that the product in question is classifiable under CTH No. 1905 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the said CTH No. 1905 is covered under entry No. 96 of Notification No. 02/20178-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and accordingly chargeable to NIL rate of Goods and Services Tax.

Held: We modify the Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/60/2020 dated 30.07.2020 of the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of M/s. Piyush Jayantilal Dobaria (Jay Khodiya Agency) and hold that – (i) The product “different shapes and sizes Papad” involved in the present case merit classification under Tariff heading No. 19059040 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and chargeable to NIL rate of Goods and Services Tax as per Sl. No. 96 of Notification No. 02/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and Notification No. 02/2017-IGST (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

GUJ/GAAR/R/60/2020 dated 30.7.2020 View
78 Gujarat AAAR-GW-1059-2021-GJ 28-June-2021, GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2021/18 1. M/s. SKG-JK-NMC Associates

Advance Ruling No. and Date : GUJ/GAAR/R/36/2020 dated 03.07.2020

Questions before the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling [‘GAAR’], Goods and Service Tax and answers to them are: 

‘Whether the said work can be covered under clause 3(v)(a) of Notification No.11/2017-Central Tax(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 i.e. works contract by way of construction, erection, commissioning or installation of original works pertaining to railways so as to entitle it for charging of reduced rate of GST@12% instead of 18%.”

The GAAR disposed off the application vide order No. GUJ/GAAR/R/ 36/2020 dated 03.07.2020 wherein it was ruled -

No. The said contract work is not covered under clause 3(v)(a) of the Notification No.11/2017-Central Tax (Rates) dated 28.06.2017, as amended by Notification No. 20/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 22.08.2017.

Gujarat AAAR: We would like to emphasize here that decisions of Advance Ruling Authorities cannot be relied upon by the appellant, since, as per the provisions of Section 103 of the CGST Act, 2017, the Advance Ruling pronounced by the Advance Ruling Authority or the Appellate Authority shall be binding only on the applicant who had sought it in respect of any matter referred to in sub-section(2) of Section 97 for Advance Ruling and the concerned officer or the jurisdictional officer in respect of the applicant.

Held: In view of the foregoing, we, allow the appeal filed by the appellant M/s.SKG-JK-NMC Associates(JV), Gandhinagar and modify the Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/36/2020 dated 03.07.2020 issued by the GAAR, by holding that the Work Contract of the appellant is covered under Clause3(v)(a) of the Notification No.11/2017-Central Tax(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended from time to time for the reasons discussed hereinabove.

GUJ/GAAR/R/36/2020 dated 03.07.2020 View
79 Gujarat AAAR-GW-1040-2021-GJ 28-June-2021, GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2021/21 1. M/s. Jayant Snacks and Beverages Pvt. Ltd

Advance Ruling No. and Date : GUJ/GAAR/R/67/2020 dated 17.09.2020.

Questions before the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling [‘GAAR’], Goods and Service Tax : 

“Under which tariff Heading PAPAD of different shapes and sizes manufactured / supplied by the appellant would attract CGST and SGST”?

The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling vide Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/67/2020 dated 17.09.2020 ruled- 

The product ‘Un-fried Fryums’ manufactured and supplied by applicant is classifiable under Tariff Item 2106 90 99 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Goods and Services Tax rate of 18% (CGST 9% + GGST 9% or IGST 18%) is applicable to the product ‘Un-fried Fryums’ as per Sl. No. 23 of Schedule III of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017, as amended, issued under the CGST Act, 2017 and Notification No. 1/2017-State Tax (Rate), dated 30-6-2017, as amended, issued under the GGST Act, 2017 or IGST Act, 2017.

Gujarat AAAR : We hold that the product ‘different shapes and sizes Papad’ involved in the present case merit classification under Tariff heading No. 19059040 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. As we have already held that the product in question is classifiable under CTH No. 1905 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the said CTH No. 1905 is covered under entry No. 96 of Notification No. 02/20178-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and accordingly chargeable to NIL rate of Goods and Services Tax.

Held: We modify the Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/67/2020 dated 17.09.2020 of the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of M/s. Jayant Snacks and Beverages Pvt. Ltd. and hold that –

(i) The product “different shapes and sizes Papad” involved in the present case merit classification under Tariff heading No. 19059040 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and chargeable to NIL rate of Goods and Services Tax as per Sl. No. 96 of Notification No. 02/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and Notification No. 02/2017-IGST (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

GUJ/GAAR/R/67/2020 dated 17.09.2020. View
80 Gujarat AAAR-GW-1039-2021-GJ 28-June-2021, GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2021/20 1. M/s. Jayant Food Products

Advance Ruling No. and Date : GUJ/GAAR/R/65/2020 dated 17.09.2020.

Questions before the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling [‘GAAR’], Goods and Service Tax : 

“Under which tariff Heading PAPAD of different shapes and sizes manufactured/ supplied by the appellant would attract CGST and SGST”?

The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling vide Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/65/2020 dated 17.09.2020 ruled-

The product ‘Un-fried Fryums’ manufactured and supplied by applicant is classifiable under Tariff Item 2106 90 99 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Goods and Services Tax rate of 18% (CGST 9% + GGST 9% or IGST 18%) is applicable to the product ‘Un-fried Fryums’ as per Sl. No. 23 of Schedule III of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017, as amended, issued under the CGST Act, 2017 and Notification No. 1/2017-State Tax (Rate), dated 30-6-2017, as amended, issued under the GGST Act, 2017 or IGST Act, 2017.

Gujarat AAAR- We hold that the product ‘different shapes and sizes Papad’ involved in the present case merit classification under Tariff heading No. 19059040 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. As we have already held that the product in question is classifiable under CTH No. 1905 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the said CTH No. 1905 is covered under entry No. 96 of Notification No. 02/20178-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and accordingly chargeable to NIL rate of Goods and Services Tax.

Held : We modify the Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/65/2020 dated 17.09.2020 of the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of M/s. Jayant Food Products and hold that –

(i) The product “different shapes and sizes Papad” involved in the present case merit classification under Tariff heading No. 19059040 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and chargeable to NIL rate of Goods and Services Tax as per Sl. No. 96 of Notification No. 02/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and Notification No. 02/2017-IGST (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

GUJ/GAAR/R/65/2020 dated 17.09.2020 View
81 Uttar Pradesh AAAR-GW-850-2021-UP 28-June-2021, UP_AAAR_16/2021 1. M/S Prag Polymers

Advance Ruling No. and Date : Order No. UP ADRG 75/2021 dated 19.03.2021

Questions before the Uttar Pradesh Authority for Advance Ruling [‘UPAAR’], Goods and Service Tax :

(i) What will be the classification of coach work like switch board cabinet for railway coaches and locomotives.”

The Authority for Advance Ruling, vide Order No. 75/2021 dated 19.03.2021, ruled that:

i. “Switch Board Cabinet” merits classification under HSN 8537”.

Uttar Pradesh AAAR: We observe that the “Switch Board Cabinet”, specially meant for the Railways, as per the design and layout provided by them, are integral part of the coach and rightly classifiable under chapter heading 8607 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Held: The classification of the “Switch Board Cabinet”, manufactured as per the specific design and layout provided by the Railways and supplied to the Indian Railways only and no-where else, falls under Chapter Heading 8607 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

UP_AAR_75_2020 dated 19.03.2021 View
82 Uttar Pradesh AAAR-GW-849-2021-UP 20-June-2021, UP_AAAR_15/2021 1. M/S CONCORD CONTROL SYSTEM PRIVATE LIMITED

Advance Ruling No. and Date : Order No. UP ADRG 73/2021 dated 22.02.2021

Questions before the Uttar Pradesh Authority for Advance Ruling [‘UPAAR’], Goods and Service Tax :

(i) What will be the HSN Code and GST Rate on supply of “Bellow Duct” to RDSO, Ministry of Railways for use in Indian Railways Coaches?

(ii) Whether the supply of “Bellow Duct” to RDSO, Ministry of Railways for use in Indian Railway Coaches will fall under the HSN Code 8607 having GST rate of 12% or will it fall under HSN 8424 having GST Rate of 18%?

The Authority for Advance Ruling, vide Order No. 73/2021 dated 22.02.2021 ruled that:

i. “Bellow Ducts” merits classification under HSN 8424 attracting GST @18% (CGST 9% & SGST 9%).

ii. The supply of “Bellow Duct” to RDSO Ministry of Railways for use in Indian Railways Coaches will fall under the HSN 8424 having GST Rate of 18%.

Uttar Pradesh AAAR: We observe that the “Bellow Ducts”, specially meant for the Railways, as per the design and layout provided by them, are integral part of the coach and rightly classifiable under chapter heading 8607 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Held: The classification of the “Bellow Ducts”, manufactured as per the specific design and layout provided by the Railways and supplied to the Indian Railways only and no-where else, falls under Chapter Heading 8607 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

UP_AAR_73_2020 dated 22.02.2021 View
83 Rajasthan AAAR-GW-70-2021-RJ 17-June-2021, RAJ/AAAR/06/2020-21 1. M/s RIICO

Appeal has been rejected. The appellant is engaged in development and leasing of the developed land to various industrial/non-industrial users and paid GST on none industrial plot. It was held that Appellant cannot claim the ITC of input services  procured for construction of immovable property (whether capitalized or not)

RAJ/AAR/2020-21/12 dated 22.02.2021 View
84 Haryana AAAR-GW-16-2021-HR 04-June-2021, HAAAR/2020-21/02 1. M/ s Ashiana Housing Ltd.

Advance Ruling No. and Date : HAR/HAAR/R/2018-19/26 dated 22.11.2018.

Questions before the Haryana Authority for Advance Ruling [‘HAAR’], Goods and Service Tax :

"Whether the Statutory charges i.e. External Development Charges and Infrastructural Development Charges recovered by the Applicant from buyers and paid further to respective Government Authorities will form part of value of taxable supplies being made by the Applicant?"

The Haryana Advance Ruling Authority passed the impugned order wherein the authority ruled - 

"The amount of statutory charges i.e. External Development Charges and Infrastructure Development Charges, recovered by the Applicant from buyers and paid further to respective Government Authorities will form part of value of taxable supplies being made by the Applicant".

Haryana AAAR : Since, the 'External Development' and 'Infrastructure Development' do contribute to the value of the flats, the charges for these beyond doubt form a constituent of the value of the construction service provided to the flat owners by the Appellant. The GST shall be applicable, as also provided under Section 15(2) supra.

Held: The Authority dismissed the appeal and upheld the Advance Ruling dated 22.11.2018 as the same does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.

HAR/HAAR/R/2018-19/26 dated 22.11.2018. View
85 Gujarat AAAR-GW-1058-2021-GJ 21-May-2021, GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2021/17 1. Shri Dipak kumar Kantilal Chotai (Talod Gruh Udyog)

Advance Ruling No. and Date : GUJ/GAAR/R/43/2020 dated 30.07.2020.

Questions before the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling [‘GAAR’], Goods and Service Tax : 

(1) “Whether on the basis of facts of the case narrated above, Mix flour mentioned above in Sr.No.1 to 17 in above table are classified under Tariff Item 1106 vide Entry No.59 of Schedule-I of Notification No.01/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and Notification No.01/2017-State Tax (Rate) dated 30.06.2017, Notification No.01/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (collectively referred to as the ‘Rate Notifications’).

(2) Whether on the basis of facts of the case narrated above, Chutney Powder mentioned above in Sr.No.18 in above table can be classified under Tariff Item 2106 vide Entry No.100A of Schedule-I of Notification No.01/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and Notification No.01/2017-State Tax (Rate) dated 30.06.2017, Notification No.01/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (collectively referred to as the ‘Rate Notifications’).

(3) If not, whether on facts and circumstances of the case, Mixed flour and Chutney Powder mentioned above are to be classified in any other Schedule Entry as per Rate Notification or Exemption Notification as your good office thinks fit.”

(4) Chutney powder when supplied with Gota Mix flour and Bhajiya Mix flour, should be considered as Composite Supply having HSN of principal supply i.e. 1106 and 5% GST should apply.

The GAAR, vide Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/43/2020 dated 30.07.2020 ruled as follows -

(a) Khaman mix flour, Gota mix flour, Handwa mix flour, Dahiwada mix flour, Dalwada mix flour, Meduvada mix flour, Pudla mix flour, Moongbhajiya mix flour, Chorafali mix flour, Bhajiya mix flour, Dhokla mix flour, Idli mix flour and Dosa mix flour are classifiable under sub-heading 11061000 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975(51 of 1975). They appear at Entry No.59 of Schedule-I of Notification No.01/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and the GST liability on all these products is 5% (2.5% CGST + 2.5% SGST).

(b) Upma mix flour, Ravaidli mix flour and Muthiya mix flour are classifiable under sub-heading 23023000 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) whereas Khichu mix flour is classifiable under sub-heading 23024000 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975). They appear at Entry No.103A of Schedule-I of Notification No.01/2017Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and the GST liability on these products is 5%(2.5% CGST + 2.5% SGST).

(c) Chutney powder is classifiable under Sub-heading 21069099 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975(1 of 1975). The said product appeared at Entry No.23 of Schedule-III of Notification No.01/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017till 14.11.2017 and at Entry No.100A of Schedule-I of the said notification with effect from 15.11.2017. The GST liability on the said product was 18%(9% CGST + 9% SGST)upto 14.11.2017 and 5%(2.5% CGST + 2.5% SGST) with effect from 15.11.2017.

(d) The supply of Gota Mix and Chutney powder will be considered as a ‘mixed supply’ of goods and will be considered as a supply of Gota Mix (falling under Sub-heading 11061000 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975)) on which the GST liability will be 5%(2.5% CGST + 2.5% SGST). The supply of Bhajiya Mix and Chutney powder will be considered as a ‘mixed supply’ of goods and will be considered as a supply of Bhajiya Mix (falling under Sub-heading 11061000 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975)) on which the GST liability will be 5%(2.5% CGST + 2.5% SGST).

Gujarat AAAR: We, therefore hold that the products of various Instant Mix / Ready Mix Flour being supplied by the applicant and classifiable under Chapter Heading 2106 of the CTA, 1975 are covered by aforesaid entry at Sr. No. 23 of Schedule – III of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate), as amended, and are leviable to Goods and Services Tax @ 18% ad-valorem (9% CGST + 9% SGST).

Held: We allow the appeal, modify the Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/43/2020 dated 30.07.2020 of the GAAR to the extent it has been appealed against, and rule that -

(i) The products (a) Khaman Mix Flour, (b) Gota Mix Flour, (c) Dhokla Mix Flour, (d) Handwa Mix Flour, (e) Idli Mix Flour, (f)Dosa Mix Flour, (g) Dahi Wada Mix Flour, (h) Dalwada MixFlour, (i) Khichu Mix Flour, (j) Upma Mix Flour, (k) RavaIdli Mix Flour, (l) Medu Wada Mix Flour, (m) Muthiya Mix Flour, (n) Pudla Mix Flour, (o) Moong Bhajiya Mix Flour, (p) Chorafali Mix Flour, and (q) Bhajiya Mix Flour being supplied by Shri Dipakkumar Kantilal Chotai (Talod Gruh Udyog) is classifiable under Tariff Item 2106 90 99 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

(ii) The products (a) Khaman Mix Flour, (b) Gota Mix Flour, (c) Dhokla Mix Flour, (d) Handwa Mix Flour, (e) Idli Mix Flour, (f) Dosa Mix Flour, (g) Dahi Wada Mix Flour, (h) Dalwada Mix Flour, (i) Khichu Mix Flour, (j) Upma Mix Flour, (k) RavaIdli Mix Flour, (l) Medu Wada Mix Flour, (m) Muthiya Mix Flour, (n) Pudla Mix Flour, (o) Moong Bhajiya Mix Flour, (p) Chorafali Mix Flour, and (q) Bhajiya Mix Flour being supplied by Shri Dipakkumar Kantilal Chotai (Talod Gruh Udyog) are covered under entry at Sr. No. 23 of Schedule – III of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate), as amended and Notification No. 1/2017-State Tax (Rate), as amended and are leviable to Goods and Services Tax @ 18% ad-valorem (9% CGST + 9% SGST).

GUJ/GAAR/R/43/2020 dated 30.07.2020 View
86 Kerala AAAR-GW-201-2021-KER 05-May-2021, AAAR/13/2020 1. Logic Management Training Institute

Advance Ruling No. and Date : KER/76/2019, dated 20/5/2020

Questions before the Kerala Authority for Advance Ruling [‘KAAR’], Goods and Service Tax : 

1) Whether the education programme and training being offered by the applicant is -xempted from GST as imparting of education since the applicant is giving lecture classes and notes including printed books published by Govt.-recognized institutes, on the basis of the specific syllabus (curriculum) published by the very same institutes formed under Acts of Parliament and also facilitating the students to appear for the examinations conducted by the same institutes.

2) Whether the education programme and training being offered by the applicant is exempted from GST as imparting of education since the applicant is giving lecture classes and notes including printed books published by Government-recognized institutions like Universities and also availed from online facilities of the said institutions, on the basis of the specific syllabus (curriculum) published by various Universities including Mahatma Gandhi University, formed under Acts of State - Legislature.

3) Whether the education programme and training being offered by the applicant is exempted from GST as 2 imparting of education since the applicant is giving lecture classes and notes including printed books published by Government-recognized institutions like ACCA, IMA USA, etc and also availed from online facilities of the said institutions, on the basis of the specific syllabus (curriculum) published by international institutions like ACCA, IMA USA, ete. Which are approved by Govt. of India.

4) What is the Service Accounting Code (SAC) of the applicant's services, under GST laws.

5) Is there any tax liability under GST laws on the applicant for collecting and transferring examination fees and other fees of the recognized institutes or universities on behalf of students studying at the applicant institute.

6) The applicant offers hostel facility to its students at a rate of less than Rs.200/- per day per person including food and at a monthly rate of maximum Rs.6000/-. Whether there is any tax liability on such hostel fee.

7) Whether there is any tax liability on hostel fees collected from outside students staying at the hostel for study purpose at a rate of Rs.250/- per day per person including food.

8) Whether there is any tax liability on the applicant for selling text books to its students.

Kerala AAAR: 

Issue No. 1 : Whether the education programme and training being offered by the appellant is exempted from GST as imparting of education since the appellant is giving lecture classes and notes including printed books published by Govt. recognized institutes, on the basis of the specific syllabus (curriculum) published by the very same institutes formed under Acts of Parliament and also facilitating the students to appeal for the examinations conducted by the same institutes.

Issue No. 2 : Whether the education programme and training being offered by the appellant is exempted from GST as imparting of education since the appellant is giving lecture classes and notes including printed books published by Government-recognized institutions like Universities and also availed from online facilities of the said institutions on the basis of the specific syllabus (curriculum) published by various Universities including Mahatma Gandhi University formed under Acts of State Legislature.

Issue No. 3 : Whether the education programme and training being offered by the appellant is exempted from GST as imparting of education since the appellant is giving lecture classes and notes including printed books published by Government-recognized institutions like ACCA, IMA USA, etc. and also availed from online facilities of the said institutions on the basis of the specific syllabus (curriculum) published by international institutions like ACCA, IMA USA, etc. which are approved by Govt. of India.

Decision – Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 – As per the provisions contained in Para 2(y) of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (rate), dated 28-60-2017, the appellant does not qualify to be categorized as “educational institution” and therefore the above stated services provided by the appellant are not exempted from GST as per entry no. 66 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017.

Issue No. 4 : What is the Service Accounting Code (SAC) of the appellant’s services under GST laws?

Decision : As per the Scheme of Classification of Services notified as Annexure to Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-06-2017, the impugned services provided by the appellant fall under “SAC – 9992-999293 – Commercial training and coaching services”.

Issue No. 5 : Is there any tax liability under GST laws on the appellant for collected and transferring fees and other fees of the recognized institutes or universities on behalf of students studying at the appellant institute.

Decision : Section 15 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 specifies that the entire consideration received by the supplier from the recipient of services is liable to GST. However, if the conditions prescribed for “Pure Agent” in Rule 33 of the CGST Rules, 2017 are satisfied in respect of the amount collected as examination fees/other fees by the appellant from the students enrolled with them, then such amount can be excluded from the value of taxable supply.

Issue No. 6 : The appellant offers hostel facility to its students at a rate of less than ₹ 200/- per day per person including food and at a monthly rate of maximum ₹ 6000/-. Whether there is any tax liability on such hostel fee?

Decision : The coaching/training provided by the appellant to their students along with hostel facility qualifies to be categorized as a composite supply as defined in Section 2(30) of the CGST Act, 2017. As per Section 8(a) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, the entire supply is to be treated as falling under “SAC-9992-999293 – Commercial training and coaching services” being the principal supply and will be liable to GST at the rate applicable for the principal supply.

Issue No. 7 : Whether there is any tax liability on the appellant for selling text books to its students?

Decision : As held in respect of hostel fees, the sale of text books to the students qualifies to be categorized as a composite supply as defined in Section 2(30) of the CGST Act, 2017. As per Section 8(a) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, the entire supply is to be treated as falling under “SAC-9992-999293 – Commercial training and coaching services” being the principal supply and will be liable to GST at the rate applicable for the principal supply.

Held: The Advance Ruling No. KER/76/2019, dated 20/5/2020 of the Advance Ruling Authority, Kerala stands upheld with aforesaid modification and consequently the appeal filed by the appellant is rejected.

KER/76/2029 DTD 20/05/2020 View
87 Karnataka AAAR-GW-110-2021-KT 16-April-2021, KAR/AAAR/Appeal-5/2020-21 1. Page Industries Limited.

Advance Ruling No. and Date : KAR ADRG 54/2020 dated: 15th December 2020.

Questions before the Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling [‘KAAR’], Goods and Service Tax :

“Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Promotional Products/Materials & Marketing items used by the Appellant in promoting their brand & marketing their products can be considered as “inputs” as defined in Section 2(59) of the CGST Act, 2017 and GST paid on the same can be availed as input tax credit in terms of Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017 or not?”

The AAR vide its order KAR ADRG No 54/2020dated 15th December 2020 held as under:

“1. The ITC on GST paid on the procurement of the “distributable” products which are distributed to the distributors, franchisees is allowed as the said distribution amount to supply to the related parties which is exigible to GST. Further the said distribution to the retailers for their use cannot be claimed as gifts to the retailers or to their customers free of cost and hence ITC of GST paid on such procurement is not allowed as per Section 17(5) of the GST Acts.

2. The GST paid on the procurement of “non-distributable” products qualify as capital goods and not as “inputs” and the applicant is eligible to claim input tax credit on their procurement, but in case if they are disposed by writing off or destruction or lost, then the same needs to be reversed under Section 16 of the CGST Act read with Rule 43 of the CGST Rules.”

Karnataka AAAR: The goods procured on payment of GST which are disposed of by way of gifts are barred from being eligible for input tax credit in terms of Section 17(5)(h), even if they are used in the course or furtherance of business. Therefore, we hold that input tax credit is not eligible on the promotional items distributed as give away items on the grounds that the same is blocked by virtue of the provisions of Section 17(2) and Section 17(5)(h) of the CGST Act.

Held : We set aside the ruling No. KAR ADRG 54/2020 dated 15/12/2020 passed by the Advance Ruling Authority and answer the question of the Appellant as follows:

The Promotional Products/Materials & Marketing items used by the Appellant in promoting their brand & marketing their products can be considered as “inputs” as defined in Section 2(59) of the CGST Act, 2017. However, the GST paid on the same cannot be availed as input tax credit in view of the provisions of Section 17(2) and Section 17(5)(h) of the CGST Act, 2017.

NO.KAR ADRG 54/2020 View
88 Andhra Pradesh AAAR-GW-1038-2021-AP 09-April-2021, AAAR/AP/01(GST)/2021 1. M/s Tirumala Milk Products Private Limited

Advance Ruling No. and Date : AAR No.28/AP/GST/2019 dated 15.07.2019

Questions before the Andhra Pradesh Authority for Advance Ruling [‘APAAR’], Goods and Service Tax :

What is the rate of GST applicable on outward supply of “Flavoured Milk”?

Authority for Advance Ruling, Andhra Pradesh issued Advance Ruling No. AAR No.28/AP/GST/2019 dated 15.07.2019 as- 

The Hs code for flavoured milk is 22029930 and the GST rate is 12% ( 6% CGST and 6% SGST) under entry No. 50 of schedure II of Notification No 01/2017 - central (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended.

Andhra Pradesh AAAR: The commodity ‘flavoured milk’ merits classification under beverage containing milk under tariff heading 2202 90 30. The rate of tax applicable for the said tariff item is 12% GST (6% CGST + 6% SGST) under entry no. 50 of Schedule II of Notification No.1/2017 – Central (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended.

In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the Ruling of the AAR is in tune with legal position and it needs no interference and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

 

Held: We confirm and uphold the decision of the lower Authority.

AAR No. 28 /AP/GST/2019 View
89 Gujarat AAAR-GW-1057-2021-GJ 08-April-2021, GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2021/16 1. M/s. Isotex Corporation Pvt. Ltd.

Advance Ruling No. and Date : GUJ/GAAR/R/74/2020 dated 17.09.2020

Questions before the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling [‘GAAR’], Goods and Service Tax : 

(i) What is the classification and rate of tax payable in respect of Agro Waste Thermic Fluid Heater or Boiler and parts thereof considering the applicability of Sl. No. 234 of Schedule I to Notification No. 01/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and corresponding notifications issued under State GST law and IGST Act?

the GAAR passed the following ruling.

(i) The Agro Waste Thermic Fluid Heaters or Boilers are classifiable under heading 8402 19 19 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and attract 9% CGST + 9% SGST in terms of Sr. No. 310 of Schedule III of Notification No. 01/2017- Central Tax (Rate) & the corresponding Notification issued under GGST Act, 2017 or 18% IGST in terms of Sr. No. 310 of Schedule III of Notification No. 01/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate), as applicable.

Gujarat AAAR: We hold that the products Biomas Fired (Steam) Boilers, Agro Waste Thermic Fluid Heater being supplied by the appellant are not covered by Entry at Sl. No. 234 of Schedule – I of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and corresponding Notification No. 1/2017-State Tax (Rate) dated 30.06.2017.

Held: we confirm the Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/74/2020 dated 17.09.2020 of the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling to the extent it has been appealed before us, by holding that the products Biomass Fired (Steam) Boilers, Agro Waste Thermic Fluid Heater of M/s. Isotex Corporation Pvt. Ltd. are not covered under Entry at Sl. No. 234 of Schedule I of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and Notification No. 1/2017-State Tax (Rate) dated 30.06.2017 but are covered under Entry at Sl. No. 310 of Schedule III of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and Notification No. 1/2017-State Tax (Rate) dated 30.06.2017 attracting Goods and Services Tax @ 18% (CGST 9% + SGST 9%), and reject the appeal.

GUJ/GAAR/R/74/2020 dated 17.09.2020 View
90 Gujarat AAAR-GW-1056-2021-GJ 08-April-2021, GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2021/15 1. M/s. Girish Rathod (Jay Ambey

Advance Ruling No. and Date : GUJ/GAAR/R/86/2020 dated 17.09.2020

Questions before the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling [‘GAAR’], Goods and Service Tax : 

‘Whether the product Fusible Interlining Fabrics of Cotton is correctly classifiable under Chapter 52 or 59?

The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling ruled that - 

‘Fusible Interlining Fabrics of Cotton’ was classifiable under Heading 5903 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975(51 of 1975)

Gujarat AAAR: we confirm the Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/86/2020 dated 17.09.2020 to the extent it has been appealed before us and hold that –

The product ‘Fusible Interlining Fabrics of Cotton’ of the appellant M/s Girish Rathod(Jay Ambey), Ahmedabad is correctly classifiable under Heading 5903 of Chapter 59 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975(51 of 1975).

Held: The appeal filed by M/s.Girish Rathod(Jay Ambey),Opp. Shri Govind Processors, 183-1, Bhagirath Process, Shahwadi, Ranipur, Narol, Ahmedabad-382405, is rejected.

GUJ/GAAR/R/86/2020 dated 17.09.2020 View
91 Tamil Nadu AAAR-GW-125-2021-TN 30-March-2021, TN/AAAR/12/2021 (AR) 1. M/s Tamil nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited

Advance Ruling No. and Date : Order No. 14/AAR/2020 dated 20.04.2020

Questions before the Tamilnadu Authority for Advance Ruling [‘TNAAR’], Goods and Service Tax :

(i) GST applicability on the transactions between TANGEDCO Ltd. & TANTRANSCO Ltd

(ii) Applicability of GST on Deposit Contribution Works

(iii) Whether TANGEDCO ltd can be considered a “Government Entity”

(iv) Applicability of GST on Transmission Charges for Natural Gas.

The AAR pronounced a ruling that - 

1. GST is applicable on the following as the same are 'supply of goods' to TANTRANSCO:

a. Supply of Operation and maintenance materials used in the regular day to day functioning; and

b. Transfer of capital Assets

2. GST is applicable on the deployment of employees to TANTRANSCO as the same is supply of Service

3. GST is not applicable on the following as the same are transaction in money:

a. Transactions of physical fund flow between the companies by the way of repayment of existing loan, availment of fresh loans, etc. on actual basis without any interest component on such fund flow.

b. Income such as transmission charges, Scheduling and Systems Operating charges, Reactive Energy Charges, etc. received from open access consumers by the applicant and adjusted through payable to TANTRANSCO.

4. The exemption under Sl.No. 25 of Notification No. 12/ 2017-C.T. (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended is not applicable to the below stated transactions between TANGEDCO Ltd and TANTRANSCO Ltd, namely-

a. Supply of Operation and maintenance materials used in the regular day to day functioning as the same is ‘Supply of Goods';

b. Transfer of capital Assets as the same is declared as 'Supply of Goods';

c. Deployment of Employee under their role and related fund flow- not a service involving distribution of electricity exempted in the said entry;

5. On the non-payment of long term open access transmission charges payable to TANTRASCO, no ruling is offered as the applicant is not the person supplying the service and Advance Ruling is a decision in relation to the supply undertaken by the applicant as per Section 95(a) of CGST/TNGST Act 2017.

6. Depository Contribution Works is classifiable under SAC 99873 and the applicable rate of tax is CGST et 9% as per SI.No. 25 of Notification No 11/2017-C.T. (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and SGST @ 9% as per Sl.No. 25 of Notification No. II (2)/ CTR/ 532 (d-14)/2017 vide G.O. (Ms) No. 72 dated 29.06.2017 as amended and the same is not exempted.

7. TANGEDCO is a 'Government Entity' as defined under Notification No. 11/2017-C.T.(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended and 12/2017-C.T.(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended by Notification No. 31/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 13.10.2017 and Notification No. 32/2017- C.T.(Rate) dated 13.10.2017 effective from 13.10.2017

8. The applicability of GST on the Transmission Charges' billed by GAIL is not answered as not admitted, under sub-section (2) of section 98 of the CGST Act, 2017 and the TNGST Act, 2017 read with Section 95(a) of the Act.

Tamilnadu AAAR: The AAR's ruling is modified depending upon the factual matrix involved with respect to the particular employee, which will have to be determined by the assessing officer concerned.

Held: We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Advance Ruling Authority in this matter except to the extent discussed in para 6.9. The subject appeal is disposed of accordingly.

14/AAR/2020 dated 20.04.2020 View
92 Tamil Nadu AAAR-GW-124-2021-TN 30-March-2021, TN/AAAR/11/2021(AR) 1. M/s Kalyan Jewellers India Limited

Advance Ruling No. and Date : Order No. 52/ARA/2019 dated 25.11.2019

Questions before the Tamilnadu Authority for Advance Ruling [‘TNAAR’], Goods and Service Tax :

(i). Whether the issue of own closed PPIs by the 'Applicant' to their customers be treated as supply of goods or supply of service

(ii). If yes, is the time of issue of PPI's by the Applicant to their Customers is the time of supply of goods or services warranting tax liability

(iii), If yes, what is the applicable rate of tax for such supply of goods or services?”

(iii), If yes, whether the issue of PPIs by the Third party PPI ssuers subject to GST at the time of issue in their hands?

(iv). Whether the amount received by the Applicant from Third Party PPI issuers subject to GST?

(v) If No, GST collection at the time of sale of goods or services on redemption of PPIs i.e., own and from Third Party will be a sufficient compliance of the provisions of the Act?

(vi) The treatment of discount (the difference between Face value and Discounted Value) in the hands of issuer of PPI in case of third party PPIs? Whether the applicant will be liable to pay GST on this difference Value?

The AAR pronounced the following rulings:

i) The Own closed PPIs issued by the Applicant are 'vouchers' as defined under CGST/TNGST Act 2017 and are a supply of goods under CGST/TNGST Act 2017

ii) The time of supply of such gift vouchers / gift cards by the applicant to the customers shall be the date of issue of vouchers if the vouchers are specific to any particular goods specified against the voucher. If the gift vouchers/gift cards are redeemable against any goods bought, the time of supply is the