| Sr No. | Order No. & Date | Name | Category | Breif Issue |
| 1 | GIB/KA/M/S PAGE INDUSTRIES/16.04.2021/AAAR-47 | M/S PAGE INDUSTRIES LTD. | Input Tax Credit | FACT OF THE CASE The Appellant is engaged in the manufacture, distribution and marketing of Knitted and Woven Garments under the brand name “JOCKEY” and swimwear and swimming equipment under the brand name “SPEEDO”. The Appellant also gets the garments manufactured from job workers. The Appellant market/sell their products through their franchisees and distributors/dealers. To promote their brands and to market their products, the Appellant is availing advertisement agency services such as ads in the print media, electronic media, outdoor advertising, etc and also procuring the promotional items and marketing material such as display boards, uniforms to staff, posters, gifts and hoardings, etc to use in displaying their products at the point of purchase i.e. Exclusive Brand Operator's showrooms and retail show rooms. The Appellant is paying GST on the procurement of the advertisement services and promotional products/marketing materials. The present appeal has been filed against the advance rulling order no KAR ADRG 54/2020 dated 15.12.2020 ISSUE OF THE CASE 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? |
| 2 | GIB/TN/M/S.TAMILNADU GENERATION/30.03.2021/AAAR-53 | M/S.TAMILNADU GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LIMITED | APPLICABILTY OF GST | FACTS OF THE CASE: The appellant M/s Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited has stated that they are engaged in the generation and distribution of electricity. TANGEDCO LTD. & TANTRANSCO LTD. are two subsidiary companies of TNEB Ltd. (Holding company), and both are registered utilities for distribution and Transmission of Electricity respectively under the Electricity Act, 2003. TANGEDCO and TANTRANSCO enter into transactions between them in the course of generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity in Tamil Nadu. ISSUE OF THE CASE: GST applicability on the transactions between TANGEDCO Ltd. & TANTRANSCO Ltd, on Deposit Contribution Works and on Transmission Charges for Natural Gas. Whether TANGEDCO ltd can be considered a “Government Entity” |
| 3 | GIB/TN/M/S. KALYAN JEWELLERS/30.03.2021/AAAR-52 | M/S. KALYAN JEWELLERS INDIA LIMITED | SUPPLY OF SERVICES | FACTS OF THE CASE: In this case the Appellant M/s Kalyan Jewellers India Limited is in the business of manufacturing and trading of Jewellery Products. As a part of sales promotion the Appellant introduced the facility of different types of Pre-Paid Instruments (PPI's) viz., Closed System PPIs, Semi-closed System PPIs, Open System PPIs through its retail outlets, third party PPI issuers and online portals to their Customers and these are generally called “Gift Vouchers/Gift Cards” in trade practice. ISSUE OF THE CASE: Whether the issue of own closed PPIs by the 'Applicant' to their customers be treated as supply of goods or supply of service 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 If yes, what is the applicable rate of tax for such supply of goods or services?” If yes, whether the issue of PPIs by the Third party PPIs issuers subject to GST at the time of issue in their hands? Whether the amount received by the Applicant from Third Party PPI issuers subject to GST? 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? 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? |
| 4 | GIB/TN/M/S KALIS SPARKLING/10.03.2021/AAAR-50 | M/S KALIS SPARKLING WATER PRIVATE LIMITED | Classification of Services | FACTS OF THE CASE: In this case the appellant M/s Kalis Sparkling Water Private Limited engaged in manufacture of new products (carbonated fruit drink/ fruit juice without adding milk) and the sample has been taken which will be sold in the market name as 'K Juice Grape'. As per the GST Act and its schedule, the rate of tax on the fruit pulp or fruit juicebased drink classified under the HSN Code 2202 is liable to be taxed at 12% ISSUE OF THE CASE: Whether their product K Juice Grape fall under category of fruit beverages or fruit based drinks? What is the rate of tax and HSN code for their product? Is there any persevered percentage of fruit or pulp in the beverages to call them as carbonated fruit beverages or drinks under the GST Act? |
| 5 | GIB/TN/M/S ICU MEDICAL/10.03.2021/AAAR-48 | M/S ICU MEDICAL LLP | RATE OF GST | FACTS OF THE CASE: In the above case the Appellant is engaged in the business of Software development for the Infusion system having its place of business located at USA During the course of supplying such software development services, the appellant company incurs expenses, which represents cost of the services and with a margin, consideration is received from the overseas holding company. The Appellant has filed the present appeal. The grounds of appeal are as follows: The payment made by the appellant to ICU Inc. is not a supply and it is transaction in money; Reimbursement of payment made towards expenses for credit card does not constitute supply from ultimate holding company to its subsidiary company as defined under Section 7 of the CGST Act,2017; ICU Inc. is an intermediary and not providing any services to the Appellant. The impugned order erred in concluding that the appellant has to pay to ICU Inc., for the privilege of using the Credit Cards The impugned order erred in not considering the independent supplier of goods or services or both providing travel and conveyance services on which the service provider has raised invoice on the Appellant; The impugned Order erred in holding that ICU Inc., is providing credit granting services to the Appellant; The impugned order has erred in stating that the Appellant has to pay ICU Medical Inc. for the privilege of using the credit card; the impugned order has erred in not considering the fact that independent service providers provide travel and conveyance services on which the service provider has raised invoice on the Appellant independently. ICU Inc. merely collects the amount relating to such expenses relating to Appellant for settling the credit card dues; The appellant is the recipient of goods or services and availing the eligible input tax credit based on the tax invoices issued by the suppliers The payments made by the appellant to the ultimate holding company towards reimbursement of payments made towards credit card expenses are transaction in money and not a supply and consequently, the same is not liable to GST under Reverse Charge Mechanism. ISSUE OF THE CASE: Whether GST is leviable on the reimbursement of the subsidiary company to its ultimate holding company located in a foreign territory outside India? In case GST is leviable, what is the GST rate applicable to the said reimbursement of expenses? |
| 6 | GIB/TN/TVL. PADMAVATHI HOSPITALITY/05.03.2021/AAAR-56 | TVL. PADMAVATHI HOSPITALITY & FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SERVICE | GST Applicability | FACTS AND ISSUE OF THE CASE: In this case the appellant is providing Manual and Mechanised House Keeping services, Man Power Supply and Security Services to Directorate of Medical Education under whom all the Tamil Nadu State Government Medical Colleges and Hospitals are functioning. The AAR ought to have considered the order of the High Court dt 14/11/2019 wherein it is clearly stated that on request of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner seeking clarification from the court in view of the first proviso to section 98(2) of the central goods and service tax act 2017 to enable the sixth respondent to WP namely AAR to pass orders in that application, the Judge Justice Audikesavulu has passed order stating that the pendency of the Writ petition 24412 dt 19/08/2019 shall not preclude the AAR from deciding the application made by the Petitioner namely the PHFMS. |
| 7 | GIB/TN/M/S. SUMEET FACILITIES/05.03.2021/AAAR-49 | M/S. SUMEET FACILITIES LIMITED | Classification of Services | FACTS OF THE CASE: The appellant M/s. Sumeet Facilities Limited has stated that they are engaged in supplying services of Waste Management, Mechanized Road Sweeping, Business Support Staffing and other services relating to Integrated Facility Management to private sector entities as well as public sector entities and Governmental organizations. ISSUE OF THE CASE: What is the classification for supply of services by the Applicant relating to waste collection, segregation, treatment, transportation and disposal services under the service agreements entered with both concessionaries in terms of notification 11/2017- C.T.(Rate) dated 281hJune 2017? Whether the activity of waste collection, segregation, treatment, transportation and disposal services carried out by the Applicant under the Service Agreements entered with both concessionaires is exempted from Goods and Services Tax in terms of entry no.3 of the Notification 12/ 2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated June 28, 2017? |
| 8 | GIB/TN/M/S. ERODE INFRASTRUCTURES/05.03.2021/AAAR-54 | M/S. ERODE INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED | EXEMPTION FROM GST | FACTS OF THE CASE: The appellant M/s. Erode Infrastructures Private Ltd is registered under GST vide GSTIN 33AECE7680DIZR. The appeal is filed against the Order No.31/ARA/2020 dated 12.05.2020 passed by the Tamilnadu State Authority for Advance ruling on the application for advance ruling filed by the appellant. The background facts of the appeal are briefly hereunder: Rail Land Development Authority invited tender for development of MFC and identified developer through the bidding process and the bid of this Erode “Multifunctional Complex” (MFC) was awarded to the appellant for the development of MFC @ Erode Railway Station. The development of MFC involves Long term Lease of 45 years for Lease of 3140 Square meter of railways land. The offer by RLDA involves the payment ₹ 3,08,27,800/- towards upfront long-term Lease premium and ₹ 7,80,00/- towards annual rent by the appellant herein. To enable the Appellant to carry out the development of MFC, the appellant has to pay/paid upfront long-term Lease premium to the contract awarder RLDA for giving railway land on long term Lease of 45 years. The Appellant herein is also a receiver, in respect of long-term lease of Railway Land offered to Appellant by RLDA in this unique contract awarded to them by RLDA. ISSUE OF THE CASE: Whether upfront lease amount paid to M/s. RLDA for the development of Multi functional complex (Operational building) at Erode Railway junction for long term lease for 45 years is exempt under GST? |
| 9 | GIB/TN/M/S. HYT SAM INDIA/04.03.2021/AAAR-55 | M/S. HYT SAM INDIA (JV) | Work Contract | FACTS OF THE CASE: The appellant is engaged in construction of Shed, Provision of M& P’s in ICF Shell/ Furnishing Division/ retro-fitment/ re-conditioning/ re-sitting/ disposal of obsolete M&P’s of Shell division including wet leasing of M&P’s and associated Electrical Works on turn key basis at ICF Chennai and the said work has been awarded vide LOA No. M/CPM/ICF/CSP-II/T-1 dated 29.06.2017. The appellant had sought ruling on whether the above works awarded to them are composite supply of services and the benefit of SI.No. 3 (v) of Notification No. 11/2017-C.T.(Rate) is applicable to subject works. The Lower Authority has ruled that the works undertaken as per Schedule-I, II and III is a composite supply of works contract and the benefit of Sl.No. 3(v) of Notification No. 11/2017-C.T.(Rate) is applicable; Supply in the agreement for wet leasing as per Schedule V are composite supply of services and not ‘works contract’ and therefore not eligible for the benefit under Sl.No. 3(v)(a) of the notification; The agreement for comprehensive Annual Maintenance Contract under Schedule VI is not eligible for entry at serial No. 3 (v)(a). ISSUE OF THE CASE: Whether the activities under tender agreement for wet leasing of Robotic spot-welding machine and laser cutting and welding machine as per Schedule V(a) & V(b) are eligible for concessional rate under Sl.No 3(v)(a) or 3 (vi) of Notification No.11/2017-CT(Rate) dated 20.06.2017 as amended and corresponding entry under state notification. Whether the activities under tender agreement for comprehensive Annual Maintenance Contract under Schedule VI(a) and VI(b) are eligible for serial no. 3 (v)(a) or 3 (vi) of Notification No.11/2017-CT(Rate) dated 20.06.2017 as amended and corresponding entry under state notification. |
| 10 | GIB/TN/M/S. CHENNAI METRO/04.03.2021/AAAR-51 | M/S. CHENNAI METRO RAIL LIMITED | LEVY OF GST | FACTS OF THE CASE: In this case the appellant M/s. Chennai Metro Rail limited had initially acquired the property (including the land for which shared access is extended to the land owner) for public purpose from the land owner and paid the considerations. The land owner had disputed the settlement before Civil Court and thereupon the appellant had entered into an MOU for out-of-court settlement. One of the claims accepted by the appellant is to extend the shared access of the pathway to the land owner for a consideration for a specific period. The issue is on this activity of grant of shared access for a consideration by the appellant. It is the contention of the appellant that the right to pathway is an easement of the land owner, an appurtenant to the residential dwelling; not in the genre of lease, tenancy, etc. which are declared as ‘services' in Schedule-II to the Act; easement is ancillary to sale of land in the composite supply of land and therefore the easement in the case at hand is not taxable under GST. ISSUE OF THE CASE: Whether leasing of pathway to a person to her/his dwelling unit by CMRL is taxable under GST? |
| 11 | GIB/RAJ/T.P.Ajmer/18.10.2018/AAAR-44 | T.P. Ajmer Distribution Ltd. | Taxability | Facts & Issue Of The Case : In respect of taxability of delayed payment charges collected from the consumers for delay in payment of consideration for supply of electricity , the appellate authority held that electrical energy has been classified under tariff no. 27160000 under customs tariff act, and value of its supply has been exempted entry No. 104 of the N. No. 02/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28 june 2017. When value of supply of electricity itself stands exempted by virtue of the above-stated exemption notification, incremental value. The appellants filed an application for Advance Ruling in Form ARA-1 before the Authority for Advance Ruling, Rajasthan (AAR) for obtaining an Advance Ruling on the issue as to whether the various Non-tariff charges recovered by the appellants from its customers would be eligible for exemption under Sr. No. 25 of Notification No. 12/2017 – Central Tax (Rate). |
| 12 | GIB/KA/YULU BIKES/02.02.2021/AAAR-62 | M/S. YULU BIKES PVT LTD. | CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS | FACTS OF THE CASE: The Appellant is engaged in renting of vehicles like e-bikes (Miracle), bicycles (Move) in Bengaluru, Karnataka through a technology driven mobility platform. They enter into contract/agreement with the customers with regard to usage / renting of the e-bikes (Miracle), bicycles (Move) and charge based on the time of usage of such vehicles. The Appellant is charging GST at 18% on the renting of e-bikes Miracle and Move under HSN Code 9966. The Appellant was of the understanding that the services of renting of e-bikes to customers would be more correctly classifiable under HSN Code 9973 as “Leasing or rental services without operator”. ISSUE OF THE CASE: “Whether renting of e-bikes(Miracle), bicycles(Move) without operator can be classified under the SAC 9973 - Leasing or rental services without operator - Sl.No.17 (viia) of Notification No.11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 as amended?” |
| 13 | GIB/KA/MIDCON POLYMERS/11.01.2021/AAAR-61 | M/S. MIDCON POLYMERS PVT. LTD | VALUATION OF RENTAL INCOME | FACTS OF THE CASE: The Appellant is engaged in the business of renting of commercial property on monthly rents and allied business. The Appellant intends to enter into a commercial agreement of renting of immovable property with educational institution in Bangalore. The contract is on the basis of the reserved monthly rent and also refundable caution deposit/security deposit. As per the terms of the contract, the deposit received shall be returned without interest on the termination of the tenancy. The refund of the advance caution deposit does not in any way determine the quantum of rent or enhance the services. The Appellant also discharges the statutory taxes levied by the BBMP on the property and the property tax so paid is no way related to the supply of services. |
| 14 | GIB/KA/MAARQ SPACES /04.05.2020/AAAR-63 | MAARQ SPACES PRIVATE LIMITED | LEVY OF GST | FACTS OF THE CASE: The Appellant is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of property development. The Appellant has entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) on 08/11/2017 with Land Owners for development of land into residential layout along with specifications and amenities. Cost of development shall be borne by Appellant. The consideration was agreed on revenue sharing basis in the ratio of 75% [for Land Owners] and 25% [for Developer / Appellant]. Pursuant to the JDA, the Appellant entered into an agreement with customers for sale of developed plots of land for consideration. ISSUE OF THE CASE: Whether the activity of development and sale of land attracts tax under GST? If the answer to the above question is yes, for the purpose of taxable value, whether provision of Rule 31 can be made applicable in ascertaining the value of land and supply of service? |
| 15 | GIB/KN/WE WORK/06.03.2020/AAAR-26 | Wework India Management Private Limited | Input Tax Credit | Facts & Issue Of The Case : The present appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 by Wework India management Private Limited against advance ruling No. KAR/ADRG 102/2019 Dated 30Th September 2019. Applicant is involved in the business of supplying shared workspace/office space to freelancers, startups, small business and large enterprises. Applicant had sought the advance ruling on the following issues:- Whether input GST credit can be availed by the applicant on the detachable 14mm Engineer wood with oak top wooden flooring which is movable in nature and capitalized as “furniture and fixture” and is not capitalized as “immovable property”? Whether input GST credit can be availed by the applicant on the detachable sliding and stacking glass portion which is movable in nature and capitalized as “furniture and fixture” and is not capitalizes as an immovable property. The decision given by this authority for the first issue is the input tax credit of GST can be availed by the applicant on the detachable 14mm Engineered wood with oak to wooden flooring which is movable in nature and capitalized as “furniture”. For the second question the answer is the input tax credit of GST is not available on detachable sliding and stacking glass partitions. The lower authority denied input tax credit in terms of section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act for the same. Being aggrieved by the portion of the impugned order related to the denial of input tax credit on detachable sliding and stacking glass portions the appellant has filed this appeal. The appellant later submitted that detachable sliding and stacking glass partitions are fixed with the help of nuts and bolts and they are neither rooted to the earth therefore these are not a part of immovable property. |
| 16 | GIB/KN/Deputy Conservator/03.03.2020/AAAR-33 | Deputy Conservator of Forests | HSN | Issue & Fact of the Case: The appeal against Advance Ruling order No 20/2019 dated 26.08.2019 was received in the office of the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling on 04.12.2019. Logging operations amounts to forestry and the same attracts nil rate of tax against entry Sl.no. 24 of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended which pertains to support services to agriculture, forestry, fishing, animal husbandry falling under heading 9986. As per explanation (iii) to the said entry, support services to forestry means ‘(iii) Carrying out an intermediate production process as job work in relation to cultivation of plants and rearing of all life forms of animals, except the rearing of horses, for food, fibre, fuel, raw material or other similar products or agricultural produce’ Therefore, the finding of the Advance Ruling Authority in para 5.8 of impugned Ruling to the effect that activity of logging is not support service to forestry and hence, is not covered under entry No. 24 of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 is not correct/rational and the same is not in harmony with the wordings of the Notification. Manufacturing is an activity which brings out a new product with different nomenclature, usage, identity in the market. However, the operation of logging is only an activity of segregating timbers, poles, firewood, pulp etc., from tree. This activity is said to be harvesting activity of forest. Therefore, these activities does not result in emergence of new product to amount to ‘manufacture’. Thus, it is evidently clear that there is no manufacturing and the same is a misconception by the respected Advance Ruling Authority. Resultantly, the said ruling to the extent it relates to this aspect is liable to be set aside as not sustainable in facts of the case and in law The Hon’ble Advance Ruling Authority has not offered an opportunity to the Appellant applicant to defend themselves with written submissions against the proposed ruling holding logging operations to be manufacturing service attracting CGST of 9% and SGST of 9% OR IGST of 18% against entry no. 26 vide Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. To go through for AAR check the link given below |
| 17 | GIB/KN/Vaishnavi Splendour/21.01.2020/AAAR-27 | Vaishnavi Splendour Homeowners Welfare Association | Exemption | Facts & Issue of the Ruling The present appeal has been filed under section 100 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 and Karnataka Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 by M/s. Vaishnavi Splendour Homeowners Welfare Association against the advance Ruling No. KAR/ADRG 47/2019 Dated: 17 Sept 2019. The appellant is an association of apartment owners in the condominium known as "Vaishnavi Splendour". The association has 88 members and each of them contribute towards the maintenance of common areas/ facilities, lightings in the common areas, water, etc. The contributions of each member work out to more than Rs.7500 per month. The appellant filed an application for Advance Ruling under section 98 of the CGST Act, 2017 and KGST Act,2017 on the following question:- Whether the applicant is liable to pay CGST and SGST on the amount of contribution received from its members? If yes, whether it can avail the benefit of Notification No 12/2017 CT(R) dt 28.06.2017 (Sl.No 77) read with Notification No 02/2018 dt 25.01.2018 which provide for exempting from tax, the value of supply upto an amount of Rs 7500/-per month per member? If the answer to (ii) is 'yes', whether it is required to restrict its claim of input tax credit? Whether the applicant is liable to pay CGST/SGST on amounts which it collects from its members for setting up a corpus fund? The Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling gave a ruling on the above questions. Aggrieved by the ruling of the Authority on the issues at (i) and (ii) above, the appellant has filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling. The Ruling passed by the Advance Ruling Authority can be found on GIB/KN/Vaishnavi Splendour/17.09.2019/AAR-258 |
| 18 | GIB/KR/Infinera India/20.01.2020/AAAR-35 | Infinera India Ltd. | Levy | Facts & Issue of The Case: Infinera India Private Limited hereinafter referred as “Applicant” is a private limited company and is registered under the Goods and Services Act, 2017. Appellant is a 100% Export Oriented Unit under the STPI scheme and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Infinera Corporation, USA. Appellant is predominantly engaged in software development services for the products developed by Infinera Corporation and also provides pre-sale and marketing services for the optical networking equipment developed by Infinera Corporation. The Appellant and Infinera USA have entered into a “Pre-sale and Marketing Services Agreement” whereby the scope of work involves: Assist Infinera USA through the coordination of sales promotion and advertising for its products in India Conduct market research and keep Infinera USA advised and informed regarding all matters within India, which may be of reasonable business interest or concern to India Provide informational, educational and service programs in India, as may be requested by Infinera USA from time to time. The applicant has sought advance ruling in respect of the following question: Whether the activities carried out in India by the applicant would render the applicant to qualify as an “intermediary” as defined under Section 2(13) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter “IGST Act, 2017”) and consequently be subject to the levy of GST? The AAR held that the activities carried out in India by the applicant in terms of the “Pre-sale and Marketing Services Agreement” qualifies the applicant as an “Intermediary” as defined under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, 2017 and consequently by subject to the levy of GST. Aggrieved by the order of AAR, the appellant further appealed to the Appellant Authority on Advance Rulings (AAAR) |
| 19 | GIB/KN/CHROMACHEMIE/14.01.2020/AAAR-31 | CHROMACHEMIE LABORATORY PRIVATE LIMITED | HSN | Issue & Fact of the Case: Whether the Pharmaceutical Reference Standards (Prepared Laboratory Reagents) imported and supplied by the applicant and classified under Tariff Item 3822 00 90 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is covered under Entry No. 80 of Schedule-II to Notification No. 1/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 attracting a levy of Integrated Tax at the rate of 12%? The Appellant, is a leading organization engaged in new product development for the pharmaceutical, bio pharmaceutical and food industries. PRS is a reference analytical sample provided by the official global pharmacopoeias required to be used by the pharmaceutical manufacturers to confirm that their product quality standards are in conformity with the respective monographs prescribed. The drug manufacturing companies use these PRS in their laboratory tests on all drug substances for determining the purity of medicine and identification and quantification of pharmaceutical impurities. The Appellant is importing PRS as ‘Prepared Laboratory Reagent’ and classifying the same under Tariff Entry 3822 00 90 of the Customs Tariff Act, in line with the decision of Hon’ble CESTAT, Bangalore in the matter which is reported in LGC Promochem India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs ct Service Tax, Bangalore ,reported in 2016 (340) E.L.T. 406 (Tri. – Bang.). Pharmaceutical Reference Standards is a Prepared Laboratory Reagent intended to be used exclusively for a specified analytical calibrating and referencing purposes and classifiable under Tariff Item 3822 00 90 of the Customs Tariff. The Appellant submits that the Government of India, on the recommendations of the GST Council vide the Notification No. 1/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2018 (hereinafter referred also to as ‘Rate Notification) has notified the applicable rate of the Integrated Tax that shall be levied on inter-State supply of goods. It is submitted that the on Entry in the Rate Notification which covers all diagnostic kits and reagents falling under Chapter Heading 3822 is Entry No. 80 of Schedule-II, which provides for IGST rate at 12%. Schedule-Ill — 12% S. No. Chapter/ Heading/ Sub-heading/ Tariff item Description of Goods 80. 3822 All diagnostic kits and reagents The Appellant submits that in the matter of Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P. v. A.R. Thermosets (Pvt.) Ltd. reported in 2016 (339) E.L.T. 500 (S.C.), the issue under consideration before the Apex Court was with respect to clarification about the rate of tax applicable to the sales of ‘bitumen emulsion. The Apex Court held that when the Entry in question uses the word ‘bitumen’ without any further qualification or exclusion then it shall include all types of ‘bitumen’ which shares the composition identity, and in common and commercial parlance is would be treated as the same product. In view of the above judgment and applying the ratio to the instant case, the Appellant hereby submits that the term “reagent” used in the description under Entry No. 80 to Schedule-11 of the Rate Notification has been used as a generic expression and it would cover all reagents, which share and have common composition and commercial entity, and meet the popular parlance test. Relying on several other case laws, the Appellant submitted that applying the ratio of the relied upon decisions, the term ‘Reagents’ in the entry SI.No 80 covers all types of reagents. |
| 20 | GIB/MH/Vservglobal/26.02.2019/AAAR-45 | Vservglobal Pvt. Ltd. | Place of Supply | Facts & Issue Of The Case : The Appellant M/s. Vservglobal Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Appellant’), is an Indian Company having its office at Mumbai. The company is incorporated to provide back office support services to overseas companies. On 30th December 2017 Appellant entered into an agreement with M/s. Vikudha Overseas Corporation Ltd., Hongkong (hereinafter referred to as ‘Client’) to provide back office administrative and accounting support. The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling upheld the ruling given by the Advance Ruling Authority by observing that the services being offered by Appellant is a package of services, which is nothing but a composite supply, of which the principal supply is that of intermediary services. The Appellant approached Hon’ble Authority for Advance Ruling to decide as to whether the aforesaid services rendered qualify as ‘Zero Rated Supply’ in terms of Section 16 of the Integrated Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 |
| 21 | GIB/KN/DURGA/24.12.19/AAAR-1 | M/S Durga Projects and Infrastructure Private Limited | Taxability | Whether Applicant is liable for GST towards work executed under JDA on land owner’s portion where work commenced during pre-GST and continued under GST Law. If tax is applicable the valuation for payment of tax? The applicant submits , their interpretation /understanding of law and consequently their view point ,on the issue raised by them , that the joint development agreement JDA is an agreement between a land owner and developer , where land owner contributes land and developers develops th e property with the condition to share the developed properties whereby land owner transfers undivided interest in landr to the Developer's share to flats and developer Agrees to construct building on the land belonging to the land owner. |
| 22 | GIB/WB/East Hooghly/23.12.2019/AAAR-30 | East Hooghly Agro Plantation Pvt. Ltd. | Classification | Facts & Issue of the Ruling This Appeal has been filed by M/s East Hooghly Agro Plantation Pvt. Ltd. on 26.09.2019 against Advance Ruling Order No. 19/WBAAR/2019-20 dated 26.08.2019, pronounced by the west Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling. The above mentioned Advance Ruling can be found on GIB/WB/EAST HOOGHLY/20.07.18/AAR-86 The Appellant is a manufacturer of tarpaulins made from High Density Polyethylene (hereinafter referred to as "HDPE") woven fabrics. The Appellant purchases HDPE granules which are sorted, mixed with additives and passed through a HDPE tape line plant to obtain HDPE tapes' HDPE tapes of 2 mm width thus obtained as the intermediate product are passed through winder plant and power looms to be woven into HDPE fabrics. To make the porous HDPE fabrics water resistant, lamination is done on both sides with Low Density Polyethylene (hereinafter referred to as "LDPE"). The HDPE fabrics are cut into size, hemmed, stitched and eyelets made to complete the manufacturing process of the final product being tarpaulins made from HDPE woven fabrics. The Appellant sought an advance ruling on the following questions: Whether HDPE woven tarpaulins are classified as "Textiles and Textile Articles" under section XI of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the "Tariff Act"), and Whether HDPE woven tarpaulin is classified under either of HSN 63061630115903 of the GST Tariff. The WBAAR pronounced its advance ruling by an order dated 26.08.2019, that HDPE woven fabric coated with LDPE melt is not a textile fabric and tarpaulins made from the said laminated fabric is not classified under either of HSN 63061630115903 of the Tariff Act. The Appellant has filed the instant Appeal against the above Advance Ruling with the prayer to set aside/modify the impugned Advance Ruling passed by the WBAAR or pass any such further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. |
| 23 | GIB/WB/Macro Media Digital/17.12.2019/AAAR-29 | Macro Media Digital Imaging Pvt. Ltd | Classification | Facts & Issue of the Case: The petitioner “M/s Macro Media Digital Imaging Pvt. Ltd.” filed an appeal against the Ruling passed by the West Bengal Advance Ruling Authority vide Order No. 15/WBAAR/2019-20 dated 19.08.2019. The Appellant is engaged in the business of printing trade advertisement material. It prints the content provided by the recipient on the base material of polyvinyl chloride cloth (hereinafter referred to as the “PVC” paper, etc. The Appellant provides the printing ink and the base material. The Appellant sought an advance ruling under section 97 on the following questions: 1. whether the job of printing of content provided by the customer taxguru.in on polyvinyl chloride banners and supplying such printed trade advertisement material amounts to supply of goods, and 2. What is the classification of such trade advertisement material under GST Tariff if the transaction is a supply of goods. The WBAAR in its Ruling No. 15/WBAAR/2019-20 dated 19.08.2019, observed inter alia, that the transaction involves a composite supply — a transaction involving both supply of goods in the form of printed PVC material and of the service of printing the content provided by the recipient, which are inseparable in the execution of the contract. According to the WBAAR, the printed trade advertisement material has no utility other than displaying the printed content. It held that the service of printing is the predominant element of the composite supplies the Appellant is making. Thus, the WBAAR held that the goods classifiable under Chapter 39 and 49 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the “Tariff Act”) are supplied by the appellant but the supply of the said items are ancillary to the principal supply of printing service. The Appellant has filed the instant Appeal against the above Advance Ruling with the prayer to set aside/modify the impugned Advance Ruling passed by the WBAAR or pass any such further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Appellant argued that the product description in their invoice is mentioned as “Printing and Supply of Trade Advertisement Material HSN#4911”, because what they supply are primarily goods. |
| 24 | GIB/WB/SIEMENS LTD./16.12.2019/AAAR-250 | Siemens Ltd | Time of Supply | Facts & Issue of the Ruling “M/s Siemens Ltd” has filed an appeal under Section 100(1) of GST Act, 2017 against the Ruling passed by the West Bengal Advance Ruling Authority vide Order No.18/WBAAR/2019-20 dated 19.08.2019. The Advance Ruling can be found on following link GIB/WB/Siemens Ltd/19.08.2019/AAR-245 The appellant is registered under GST and had entered into a contract with M/s. Kolkata Metro Rail Corporation Limited before inception of the West Bengal GST Act, 2017/ the CGST Act, 2017, for 'design, supply, installation, testing and commissioning" of the power supply and distribution system, third rail system and SCADA system for the entire line and depot of the Kolkata East-West Metro Rail Project. The Appellant sought an advance ruling under section 97 of the WBGST Act, 2017/ the CGST Act, 2017, on whether GST shall be charged on the gross amount of the invoice raised under GST regime or net amount of invoice after adjustment of lump-sum amount outstanding as on 30.06.2017. The WBAAR passed an advance ruling by an order dated 19.08.2019, wherein it pronounced inter alia, that the appellant is deemed to have supplied works contract service to KMRCL on 01.07.2017 to the extent covered by the lump-sum that stood credited to its account on that date as mobilisation advance and GST is leviable thereon accordingly. The value of the supply of works contract service in the subsequent invoices as and when raised should, therefore, be reduced to the extent of the advance adjusted in such invoices. To avoid double taxation, the GST should, therefore be charged on the net amount that remains after such adjustment. Now, the appellant, has filed the instant Appeal against the above Advance Ruling with the prayer to set aside/modify the impugned Advance Ruling passed by the WBAAR or pass any such further or other orders as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant contended and argued upon various aspects again and cited in its favour the decisions of the Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunals in the cases of Thermax Instrumentation Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and GB Engineering Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Tiruchirapalli [2017(52)S.T.R. 313(Tri.-Chennai)] |
| 25 | GIB/MH/Rotary Club of Mumbai/11.12.2019/AAAR-28 | Rotary Club of Mumbai Nariman Point | Supply | Facts & Issue of the case The present appeal has been filed by Applicant “Rotary Club of Mumbai Nariman Point” against the Advance Ruling No. GST-ARA-142/2018-19/B-88 dated 13.08.2019. "Rotary" is an International organization having clubs in 216 countries engaged in humanitarian and charitable services. These services are executed through various districts comprising of many Clubs. In order to facilitate the meetings and administration, reimbursements are collected from members. These amounts are then used for administration and meetings. In some cases, the amount so collected is likely to exceed Rs.20 lacs, being the threshold for registration under GST Act, 2017. The appellant filed application for advance ruling seeking an advance ruling in respect of the following questions: - Whether contributions from the members in the Administration Account, recovered for expending the same for the weekly and other meetings and other petty administrative expenses incurred including the expenses for the location and light refreshments, amounts to or results in a supply, within the meaning of supply? If answer to question no. 1 is affirmative, whether it will be classified as supply of goods or services? Whether the applicant would be a taxable person under the provisions of the Act? If answer to question no. 3 is affirmative, who shall be person responsible under GST, as office bearers keep on changing every year? Whether the said collection of funds under common pool and spending back the same on said contributors, would entail 'supply' as defined in the law? If answer to Question No. 5 is affirmative, whether the same would be supply of goods or services? The AAR passed the Advance Ruling No. GST-ARA-142/2018-19/B-88 dated 13.08.2019 in respect of the six questions enumerated above. . The Advance Ruling can be found at GIB/MH/Rotary Club of Mumbai/13.08.2019/AAR-16 Aggrieved by the rulings passed by the AAR, the appellant has preferred appeal before appellate authority to: - set aside the Order No. GST-ARA-142/2018-19/B-88 dated 13.08.2019 and allow the present appeal in full with consequential relief to the appellants; order that transaction between an association or club and its member will not be covered within the scope of supply u/s.7 of the CGST Act, 2017. Hence the same shall not be taxable; grant a personal hearing/ grant an out of turn hearing; and pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. |
| 26 | GIB/MH/Sanghvi Movers/13.11.2019/AAAR-37 | Sanghvi Movers Limited | Input Tax Credit | Facts & Issue Of The Case : The appeal is filed against the Order No.26/AAR/2019 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Authority for Advance ruling on the application for advance ruling filed by the appellant. As the ruling given by advance ruling authority that the applicant will not be eligible for full ITC as per proviso to Section 16(2), as they are not paying the full amount to their supplier SML HO, rather net amount is being paid. Accordingly, the Hon’ble AAR, Tamil Nadu held that, supplies received from SML HO is not eligible for the full ITC. Rather ITC shall not be available to the extent specified in the restrictions as per second proviso Section 16(2) of CGST Act read with Rule 37 of CGST Rules, 2017. Following AAAR can be referred in context to the decision made in the AAR GIB/TN/SANGHVI MOVERS/21.06.2019/AAR-194, M/s. Sanghvi Movers Ltd is engaged in the business of providing medium-sized heavy-duty cranes on wet-lease basis i.e. Own, Operate and Maintain and provide entire operating crew, such as crane operators, riggers, helpers, technicians, engineers, etc . The transaction is between distinct persons. The appellant in the tax invoice raised on their customers mentions that the payment to be made either by Cheque/DD in the name of 'SANGHVI MOVERS LIMITED' or directly to the account of SML HO at Pune. The appellant has represented that the receipts and payables are accounted at the entity level only. The HO being distinct person in the eyes of law and the transaction is in the course of furtherance of business, the supply is taxable supply for which SML HO has adopted a value agreed under the 'Pricing' clause of the MOU and paid the tax on the value declared in the Invoice. |
| 27 | GIB/MH/CMS Info/31.10.2019/AAAR-39 | CMS Info Systems Ltd. | Input Tax Credit | Facts & Issue Of The Case : The applicant has sought the advance ruling for the following issues : In the case of CMS Info Systems Limited, wherein reverting its earlier ruling, Hon’ble AAAR , Maharashtra held that since it has been established that money, transported by the Appellant in the cash- carry vans, can be considered as goods, ITC in respect of the cash carry vans used for the transportation of cash will be available to the Appellant in accordance with provisions of Section 17(5) (a)(ii) of the CGST Act,2017 (pre- amendment). It was observed that what is being transported by them in the cash-carry vans is not the money but the goods for them, as they cannot use such money for the purpose, whatsoever. |
| 28 | GSTIndia.biz/KAR/ANSYS/2019/12.09.19/AAAR-2 | M/S ANSYS SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED | Classification and Registration | Whether Marketing & Pre-Sales Technical Support Services provided by the applicant will be classified as Intermediary services in terms of Section 2(13) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Whether the Post- Sales Technical Support Services provided by the applicant would be classified as Information Technology Support Services falling under HSN Code 998313? |
| 29 | GIB/MH/ROTARY CLUB/08.08.2019/AAAR-25 | Rotary Club of Mumbai Queens Necklace | Input Tax Credit | Fact of the Case: The club is affiliated to Rotary International, a worldwide organization with 520 + districts, 35000+ clubs and 1.2 million plus members. The object of applicant club is to encourage and foster the ideal of service. The club is working as Non-Profit Organization Issues Involved : Applicant has sought advance ruling in respect Whether the amount collected as membership subscription and admission fees from members is liable to GST as supply of services also club can claim ITC on banquet and catering service for holding members meetings & various events? |
| 30 | GIB/TN/MRF Limited/24.06.2019/AAAR-38 | MRF Limited | Input Tax Credit | Facts & Issue Of The Case : The Appeal is filed against the Order No. 5/AAR/2019 dated 22.01.2019 passed by Tamil Nadu State authority for Advance Ruling on the application for advance ruling filed by the applicant. They state that they do not fall under section 15(3) (a) or (b) of CGST Act' 2017, hence the value of supply should be full undiscounted value. In the light of the above, they wanted to know whether, when GST is paid on full value by supplier and credit note does not include GST, they can take full ITC on undiscounted value. Following AAAR can be referred in context to the decision made in the AAR GIB/TN/MRF Ltd./22.01.2019/AAR-181 , The Ruling passed by the advance ruling authority is In Accordance with the Section 16 of the CGST Act 2017, the Applicant can avail Input Tax Credit only to the extent of the invoice value raised by the suppliers less the discounts as per C2FO software which is paid by him to the suppliers. - The value to be adopted for payment of tax is not in dispute in the present case. The issue taken up with the AAR related to the eligibility to the ITC as a result of such discounts. The applicant had contended that the taxable value for the purpose of payment of GST will be the value as per purchase contract without considering such discount so offered and the supplier is liable to pay tax on the value before discount. |
| 31 | GIB/MH/Asahi/19.06.2019/AAAR-46 | Asahi Kasei India Private Limited | Place of Supply | Facts & Issue of The Case: M/s Asahi Kasei India Pvt.Ltd.,The Capital Office No. 1502-B, 15th Floor, Plot No. C-70, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(East),Mumbai 400051 (here in after referred to as ‘the Respondent’) filed detailed application under Section 97 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 104 (1) Of the CGST Rules, 2017 before the Maharashtra Authority on advance ruling seeking advance ruling on: 1) Whether the service supplied by the Respondent under the Service Agreement dated 1 March 2013 constitute a supply of “Support Services” falling under HSN code 9985 or “Intermediary service” classifiable under HSN code 9961/9962? 2) Whether the service supplied by the Respondent under the Marketing Services Agreement dated 1 December 2012 constitute a supply of “Support services” falling under HSN code 9985 or “Intermediary service” classifiable under HSN code 9961/9962? 3) Whether the service provided by the Respondent is an export of services as defined under Section 2(6) of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act 2017? |
| 32 | GIB/Raj/IMF/08.05.2019/AAAR-47 | IMF Cognitive Technology Private Limited | Input Tax Credit | Facts & Issues Involved: M/s IMF Cognitive Technology Private Limited, Jaipur is a Private Limited Company holding GSTIN 08AAECI1271Q1Z6 in the State of Rajasthan . The Appellant is engaged in development, designing and trading in all types of computer software. They are engaged in export of software as well. The Applicant/Appellant had sought ruling under Section 97(2)(d) of the CGST Act 2017, on the following question:- “Whether the input tax credit of Central Tax paid in Haryana be available to the Applicant who is registered in Rajasthan State ?” |
| 33 | GIB/MH/Assistant Commissioner/23.04.2019/AAAR-40 | Assistant Commissioner Central Tax VS Lions Club of Poona | Others | Fact & Issue of Case: It was held by revising or amending the para 19 of the original AAAR Order No. MAH/AAAR/SS-RJ/32/2018-19 dated 23.04.2019 in as much as the membership fee, collected by the Respondent from its members, will not construed as consideration for levy of GST; rather it is the registration fee, collected by the Respondent from its members for organising the skill oriented workshops, will be construed as consideration against the supply made by the Respondent to its members, and accordingly will be leviable to GST, while maintaining that Lions Club of Poona Kothrud, on account of the activities i.e. organising training programs/workshops for its members, is liable to take registration for discharging their GST liability. |
| 34 | GIB/UP/SPFL/18.04.2019/AAAR-43 | SPFL Securities Ltd. | Time of Supply | Facts & Issue Of The Case : M/s. SPFL Securities Limited 15/63-M, SPFL House, Civil Lines, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, 208001 is a registered assessee under GST having GSTN: 09AABCS2452CIZP. The applicant is engaged primarily in the business of providing service of stock broking i.e. purchasing and selling of shares on behalf of the clients on exchange platform by virtue of being a recognized BSE/NSE appointed stock broker. Since the service of buying & selling of securities is exempted under GST, the corresponding delayed payment charges, which are also linked to the above service of trading of securities, should also stand exempt under GST. |
| 35 | GIB/MH/Sabre Travel/10.04.2019/AAAR-36 | Sabre Travel Network India Pvt. Ltd | Intermediary Services | Facts & Issue Of The Case : The applicant is a private limited company, has developed a global distribution system which uses a computer Reservation System Software which it owns and operates. The present appeal has been filed against the advance ruling No. GST-ARA-08/2018-19/B-76 , Dated 26.07.2018. The applicant submits that the impugned ruling passed by the learned authority is erroneous in as much as the contours of digital marketing is different from the conventional marketing or sales activity. Applicant also have contended that their responsibility of providing marketing support services like installation of interfaces to the CRS software, consultancy, assistance, provision of information services, etc.) relating to the CRS System arises only upon sabre APAC deciding to accept the potential customer based on the analysis provided by the applicant and they do not facilitate or undertakes any such arrangements to supply goods or services. in terms of Section 2(30) of the CGST Act, 2017, as all the activities of the Appellant are carried out in conjunction with each other and can be naturally bundled in the ordinary course of business. Hence, the activities undertaken by the applicant can be considered as composite supply, of which the principal supply is that od intermediary. |
| 36 | GIB/MH/Crown Beers/09.04.2019/AAAR-42 | Crown Beers India Pvt. Ltd. | Rate | Facts & Issues Involved: The Appellant Crown Beers India Private Limited is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The Appellant has entered into the Agreement with PIL to brew / manufacture, package and supply Products, as specified under the Agreement, from its bottling unit to buyers / distributors in the territory identified by the Appellant. In this case Crown Beers entered into an agreement with bottling unit to brew, manufacture, package and supply beer, as specified under the agreement, from its bottling unit to buyers/distributors in the territory identified by the Crown Beers. Such unit had surplus manufacturing and licensed capacity at its bottling unit and held valid licenses, permits and permissions necessary under the applicable laws for manufacture of beer at the bottling unit. Crown incurred to bottling unit a fixed fee and costs specified in the agreement as a consideration for supply of beer. It was held that since the costs are paid by the appellant herein, there is no supply to bottling unit and therefore, costs are not liable to GST. However, while observing so, the Authority held that fixed fees paid by the Crown Beers to bottling unit are liable for GST, without appreciating that there is a single consideration for supply of alcoholic liquor for human consumption which is beyond the purview of the GST provisions. The Authority by coming to such a conclusion has held that bottling unit is providing job work services to the appellant and therefore, fixed fee which is consideration for such services is liable to GST in the hands of bottling unit. Being aggrieved, Crown Beers filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority |
| 37 | GIB/RJ/SANDVIK ASIA/18.03.2019/AAAR-59 | M/S. SANDVIK ASIA PVT. LTD | Classification of Supply | FACTS AND ISSUE OF THE CASE: In this case the Appellant is engaged into the business of after sales support for the mining equipment manufactured by its overseas group entities which are imported by the customers into India. In respect of the supply of parts under the proposed Agreements, the Appellant would supply parts falling under multiple GST rates such as 18%, 28%, etc. The Appellant provides the maintenance services through two separate Agreements (referred to as Agreement-1 i.e. ‘Comprehensive Maintenance Agreement’ and Agreement-2 i.e. ‘Equipment Parts Supply and Services Agreement’). Under the said Advance Ruling Order, the Rajasthan Authority for Advance Ruling, GST, has held that the activities performed under Agreement-i shall be classified as “Composite Supply”, where principal supply would be the supply of maintenance services. In respect of Agreement- 2, the AAR has held that the services provided under the said Agreement are classifiable as “Mixed Supply” under Section 2(74) of CGST/RGST Act, 2017. The Appellant is not satisfied with the classification of the activities performed under Agreement-2 as “Mixed Supply” and therefore has preferred the subject appeal under Section 100 of the CGST Act/RGST Act, 2017. |
| 38 | GIB/WB/INDIAN OIL/08.03.2019/AAAR-23 | Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. | Input Tax Credit | Facts & Issues Of The Case - Indian Oil Corporation has its Registered Office in Mumbai, and is operating through its various offices, including its depots, terminals, LPG bottling plants, spread across India and are registered under the Goods and Services Tax, 2017, in all the States/Union Territories of India, except in the Union Territory of Lakshwadeep. Advance Ruling application had been filed by the West Bengal Unit of Indian Oil Corporation. The Applicant exports HSD, ATF and other refined petroleum products to Nepal under the terms and conditions laid down in an agreement dated 27/03/2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the Agreement”) between Indian Oil Corporation and Nepal Oil Corporation Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “NOC”). ATF, Motor Spirit and HSD, sourced from the Applicant’s manufacturing unit (refinery) at Haldia in West Bengal are transported by Rail to the Indian Oil Corporation’s warehouse at Raxaul in Bihar. Under the GST Act the Applicant has reported the above transactions as interstate exempt supplies from Indian Oil Corporation’s West Bengal Unit, and export of Indian Oil Corporation’s Bihar Unit. The Applicant has been paying GST on the input service of Railway Freight for the above transportation. As the freight is charged for booking and transportation from West Bengal, it is billed on the Applicant, as the place of supply of the input service is West Bengal. The main issues which need to be considered in the Application can be briefly summarized as follows: a. Whether or not the products transported and supplied by the Applicant are “non-GST products”, “non-taxable supplies” “exempt supplies” or “zero rated supply of goods” b. Whether the transportation to Raxaul warehouse is to be considered to be for export of supply to Nepal or transfer of goods to Indian Oil Corporation’s Bihar Unit for ultimate export to Nepal. |
| 39 | GIB/MH/IL & FS EDUCATION/04.02.2019/AAAR-58 | M/S. IL & FS EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LTD. | Classification of Supply | FACT AND ISSUE OF THE CASE: Appellant company is engaged in key areas of education, skill development, health care and cluster development and was awarded contract to implement information and communication technology (ICT) project in Government and Government aided higher secondary schools across State which inter alia involved supply of computer hardware, software and connected accessories, maintenance of equipment along with creation of infrastructure and provision of computer training for which teachers/project managers were appointed - Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) held that supplies undertaken by appellant are in nature of artificially bundled, composite supply, and training provided is not predominant supply, thereby resulting in non-fulfilment of prerequisites of Sl. No. 72 of Notification No.12/2017- C.T. (Rate) |
| 40 | GIB/OD/NATIONAL ALUMINIUM/21.01.2019/AAAR-24 | NALCO | Input Tax Credit | Facts & Issues Of The Case- NALCO is manufacturer of aluminium metal through its refinery located at Damanjodi & Smelter Plant at Angul (Odisha). It has townships at Angul, Damonjodi and Bhubaneswar for its employees. It also runs hospitals at Damanjodi and Angul for its employees and has guest houses for touring employees and guests Whether the applicant is entitled to take input credit of tax paid on various goods and services used for maintenance of applicants’s township, quest houses hospitals and horticulture for paying output tax? AAR and AAAR Held that:- 1.Some of the services are exclusively in relation to the residential colony, some are in relation to the plant, some are in relation to the guest house and transit house, some are for use in residential colony as well as in the plant while some of the services like urban plantation, provision of drinking water at picnic spot, raising of seedling, and general plantation are neither for the plant nor for the residential colony. The applicant might be doing those activities while discharging some obligation but such activities are not for or in relation to the core business. Some other activities like contract for running a pharmacy outlet simply for dispensing medicine and other allied product free of charge. This is a clear case of supply without consideration mainly to the employees of the applicant. Still some other services like maintaining the power grid is predominantly for use in the plant and maintaining the solid waste treatment plant seems to be for treating the solid waste of the plant. 2.The services are varied in nature and intended for partly business use (to the extent intended for the plant, plant area or plant building) and partly non business use (to the extent intended for use outside the applicant area). Some of the services ere for use in the residential colony while some other are for use in the hospital and guest houses. Undeniably the applicant is providing services to its employees by way of residential accommodation in the colony, temporary accommodation in the guest houses and is dispensing health services to its employees and others. 3. The services which are being availed clearly in relation to the residential colony shall not qualify for input tax credit. On the other hand services received partly in relation to the residential colony and partly in relation to the plant, proportionate ITC to the extent relatable to the plant are available whereas services availed in relation to the residential colony shall not qualify for input tax credit in terms of Sub-section 2 of Section 17. 4. Establishment of hospitals and maintenance thereof may be for discharging the statutory obligation under the ESI Act by the employer, but dispensing medical service to the employees and others is a supply of service by the employer (the applicant in this case). Such service being nil rated will fall under exempt supplies. Consequently, the inputs and input services received by the applicant for dispensing the exempt service will not qualify for input tax credit in terms of Section 17 (2) of the OGST/CGST Act. 5.Establishing, maintaining and furnishing guest houses including landscaping by way of gardening or otherwise is neither a perquisite nor a statutory obligation. It is purely for providing accommodation service to guests including employees on tour. This is in fact a business requirement to maintain such facilities and accordingly the applicant is entitled to input tax credit of the tax paid on inward supply of input and input services for maintenance of the guest house, transit house, and training hostels, but excluding the food and beverages provided in such establishments. Credit of such input services are as such blocked-in clause b of Sub section 5 of section 17 of the OGST and CGST Act – credit not allowed. |
| 41 | GIB/MH/Safset Agencies/07.10.2019/AAAR-34 | Safset Agencies Private Limited | Classification and Rate | Facts & Issue Of The Case : This appeal is filed by Safset Agencies Private Limited Against ruling No. GST-ARA-86 /2018-19/B- 07 , dated 15.01.2019 pronounced by Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling. Applicant is an auctioneer dealing in various goods such as paintings, vintage collectibles, sculptures, classic miniatures paintings etc. The advance ruling has been sought on the following issues: Whether applicant is dealing in second hand goods and tax is to be paid on the difference between selling price and purchase price as stipulated in Rule 32(5) of CGST Rules, 2017? The classification and HSN code of goods listed in the table in “Issues for Determination” and GST rates applicable to such goods. Specific details and description of ‘collectibles (books) has not been mentioned by the applicant the question cannot be answered. The main issue for which the applicant has filed appeal before AAA is Whether applicant is entitled to value following goods in accordance with Rule 32(5) of the central Goods and service tax rules, 2017 or otherwise under different situations and for different commodities. |
| 42 | GIB/KL/ABBOTT HEALTHCARE/14.12.2018/AAAR-57 | ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED | Classification of Supply | FACTS OF THE CASE: The appellant is a company engaged in the sale of pharmaceutical products, diagnostic kits etc. The appellant has adopted the business model of placing their own medical instruments at the premises of unrelated hospitals or laboratories and supplied the pharmaceutical products, reagents, diagnostic kits etc., to be used in such equipment by executing an agreement. ISSUE OF THE CASE: 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 supply? Whether such movement of goods constitutes otherwise than by way of supply under GST? |
| 43 | GIB/Columbia/12.12.2018/AAAR-41 | Columbia Asia Hospitals Private Limited | Supply | Facts & Issue Of The Case : The appellant is registered under GST and is engaged in providing healthcare. services The appellant is a private limited company having an international healthcare group operating a chain of modem hospitals across Asia. The appellant is presently operating across six different states having eleven hospitals out of which six units are in the state of Karnataka. The appellant filed an application on 14.03.2018 before the Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling under Section 97 of CGST/KGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 104 of CGST/KGST Rules, 2017 in form GST ARA-01, seeking a ruling on the following question: Whether the activities performed by the employees at the Corporate Office in the course of or in relation to employment, such as accounting, other administrative and IT System Maintenance for the units located in the other states as well i.e distinct persons as per Section 25(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act,2017 (CGST Act) shall be treated as supply as per Entry 2 of Schedule I of the CGST Act or it shall nor be treated as supply of Service as per Entry I of Schedule III of the CGST Act? |
| 44 | GIB/WB/GKB Lens/27.09.18/AAAR-18 | GKB Lens Pvt. Ltd. | Input Tax Credit | Facts & Issue of Case: The Appellant has filed an Appeal against the above Advance Ruling regarding the availability of Input Tax Credit on stock transfer from the Head Office of M/s GKB Lens Ltd. to its branches in other States at Zero Value. This Appeal has been filed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX, Tollygunge Division, Kolkata South Commissionerate (hereinafter referred to as the “Appellant”), on 06.07.2018 against the Advance Ruling No. 07/WBAAR/2018-19 dated 30.05.2018 pronounced by the West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling. It is seen that the question raised by M/s GKB Lens Pvt. Ltd. was correctly answered by the Authority of Advance Ruling. However, it may be clarified that no input tax credit is available to the recipient of goods/service if the value declared by the supplier in the invoice/debit note is zero. |
| 45 | GSTIndia.biz/MAHA/MAHA/2018/11.09.2018/AAR-9 | M/s. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited | Taxability | The Appellant has filed an Appeal against the order stating that GST will be levied on liquidated damages treating it as independent supply and rejecting contention of appellant. Ref. AAR Order No. GST-ARA-15/2017-18/B-30 dt. 08.05.2018 |
| 46 | GSTIndia.biz/MAHA/GOAT/2018/11.09.2018/AAR-8 | Ahmednagar District Goat Rearing and Processing Co – op Federation Ltd. | Classification and Rate | The Appellant has filed an Appeal against the order stating that supply of (Sheep/Goat) animal carcass in its natural shape in frozen state in different weight and size packed in LDPE bags without mentioning the weight and one or two such LDPE bags further packed in HDPE bags being supplied to Army would qualify as product put in unit container. Ref. AAR Order No. GST-ARA-21/2017/B-27 dtd. 21.04.2018 |
| 47 | GSTIndia.biz/UK/FO/2018/07.09.18/AAR-6 | Divisional Forest Officer Uttarakhand | Taxability | Whether Abhivahan Shulk (Transit Fees) collected by the appellant (A Govt of Uttarakhand Department ) shall be exigible to GST under SAC 9997 as Other Services or not? Ref AAR Order No. 01/2018-19 dt. 20.03.2018 |
| 48 | GSTIndia.biz/MAHA/GIRIRAJ/2018/05.09.2018/AAR-10 | M/s. Giriraj Renewables Private Limited | Work Contract | The Appellant has filed an Appeal against the order stating that contract for Solar Power Generating System should be treated as works contract instead of composite supply. Ref. AAR Order No. GST-ARA-01/2017/B-01 dt. 05.09.2018 |
| 49 | GSTIndia.biz/KAR/TATHAGAT/2018/05.09.18/AAR-13 | Tathagat Heart Care Centre | Taxability | The Appellant is a cardiology specialist hospital and has filed an Appeal against Advance Ruling regarding levy of GST on rent paid by hospital. |
| 50 | GSTIndia.biz/KAR/GIRIRAJ/2018/05.09.2018/AAAR-11 | Giriraj Renewables Private ltd. | Taxability | The Appellant has filed an Appeal against Advance Ruling stating that the major component (PV Module) said to have been constituting 70% of the whole project can not be construed to be a principal supply of the project and thereby cannot be a composite supply and the supply made by sub-contractor need to be viewed as an individual supply so appropriate rate of GST has to be applied depending on the specific nature of supply. |
| 51 | GSTIndia.biz/MAHA/FERMI/2018/04.09.2018/AAR-14 | M/s. Fermi solar Farms Pvt. Ltd. | Work Contract | The Appellant has filed an Appeal against the order stating that contract for Solar Photovoltaic Plant should be treated as works contract instead of composite supply. Ref. AAR Order No. GST-ARA-03/2017/B-03 dated 03.03. 2018 |
| 52 | GSTIndia.biz/MAHA/LIONS/2018/28.08.2018/AAR-3 | LIONS CLUB OF POONA KOTHRUD | Taxability | The appellant is autonomous units those collect fee form members in order to conduct social activities and meet their administrative costs and intends that the service is not under purview of GST. Against the said ruling Department is in appeal contending that said order of ruling is not proper. 1. Whether membership fee collected from members are liable to GST or not 2. Whether club and member are considered as distinct person. |
| 53 | GSTIndia.biz/MAHA/PLASTIC/2018/21.08.2018/AAR-15 | M/s. National Plastics Industries Ltd., Mumbai | Classification | The Appellant has filed an Appeal against the order which classified the product under heading 3918. Ref. AAR Order No. GST- MAH/AAAR/SS-RJ/06/2018-19 |
| 54 | GSTIndia.biz/MAHA/VISHAHAR/2018/10.08.2018/AAR-5 | MRS. Vishahar Prashant Bhave (MICRO INSTRUMENTS) | Rate | In the instant case it is apparent from the advance ruling application filed by the applicant, the commission received by applicant from export of service is under the purview of GST. Whether the commission received in convertible foreign exchange for rendering services as an” Intermediary” between an exporter abroad receiving such services and an Indian importer of an Equipment is an export of service leviable of tax or not /zero rated supply |
| 55 | GSTIndia.biz/MAHA/ADITYA/2018/07.08.2018/AAR-16 | M/s. Aditya Birla Retail Ltd. | Exemption | Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Appellant has filed the present Appeal. Whereas, the ARA has, in terms of common finding set out in the impugned order, answered the Question 1 and Question 2 negatively, the Appellant is, owing to commercial and business exigencies, only raising issues pertaining to Question 1 and Question 3. However all the findings are disputed. Ref. AAR Order No. GST-ARA-13/2017/B dtd. 23.03.2018 |
| 56 | GIB/MH/CMS/06.08.2018/AAAR-19 | M/s. CMS Info Systems Ltd. | Input Tax Credit | Facts & Issue Of The Case : The applicant has sought the advance ruling for the following issues : Whether “supply” of such motor vehicles as scrap after its usage can be treated as “supply” in the course or furtherance of business and whether such transaction would attract GST? If yes, then what is rate of GST or/ compensation cess ? Whether input tax credit is available to CMS info system Ltd. On the purchase of motor vehicles i.e, cash carry vans which are purchased ,used for cash management business and supplied post usage as scrap ? The decision of the advance ruling is (a) Details here in this application are inadequate as per the notifications No. 1/2017-Central/ State Tax (Rate) and notification No.1/2017-Compensation Cess (Rate) as amended from time to time. (b) Input Tax Credit would be available when the motor vehicles are used for transportation of goods. Therefore, the input tax credit on purchase of motor vehicles i.e, cash carry vans would not be available. Now, the appellate authority for advance ruling states that the safeguards are prescribed by the RBI are not applicable to goods clearly establishes that RBI Considers the money as different from goods. The exclusion of ‘money’ from the scope of the E-way Bill has no bearing on the definition of the ‘Goods’ provided in the CGST Act. As per the Notification No. 2/2017 -Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, wherein full exemption has been provided to Rupees Notes ,placed under Sr.no. 117 and falling under chapter/heading 48/ 4907, when sold to RBI the said exemption has been provided to Rupees Notes on which printing is done by RBI to convert them into currency, this notification does not support their argument and their claims either. Applicant relying upon rule 138(14) which carves out goods the transportation of which would not require the preparation of E-Way bill . E-Way bill has no bearing on the definition of the ‘goods’ provided in the CGST Act and the same should not prevail over the provisions laid down in act. |
| 57 | GSTIndia.biz/MAHA/KKC/2018/03.08.2018/AAR-20 | M/s. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. | Input Tax Credit | The Appellant has filed an Appeal against the order stating that KKC as appeared in service tax return of Input Service Distributor on June 30, 2017 which is carried forward in electronic ledgre will not be considered as admissible input tax credit. Ref. AAR Order No. GST-ARA-18/2017/B-25 dtd. 05.04.2018 |
| 58 | GSTIndia.biz/MAHA/HAFELE/2018/02.08.2018/AAR-21 | M/s. Hafele India Pvt. Ltd. | Classification | The Appellant has filed an Appeal against the ruling that Caesarstone imported by the applicant is to be classified under HSN code 6810. Ref. AAR Order No. GST-ARA-10/2017/B-13 dtd. 20.03.2018 |
| 59 | GSTIndia.biz/WB/SIKA/2018/26.07.18/AAR-4 | Sika India Private Limited | Classification | The Appellant has filed an appeal against the order of WBAAR to classify the product "SIKA Block Joining Mortar" under Tariff heading 3214 90 90. The appellant had approached the WBAAR for classifying the product under the heading 3824 50 90 instead of 3214 90 90. Ref AAR Order No. 01/WBAAR/2018-19 dt. 09/04/2018 |
| 60 | GSTIndia.biz/WB/SWITCING/2018/25.07.18/AAR-12 | Switcing Avo Electro Power Limited | Classification | The appellant has filed an appeal against the order of WBAAR classifying supply of UPS and external storage battery as a Mixed Supply. The appellant had approached the WBAAR for classifying the supply as a composite supply. Ref AAR Orde No. 03/WBAAR/2017-18 dt. 21/03/2018 |
| 61 | GIB/WB/SWITCHING AVO ELECTRO/25.07.2018/AAAR-60 | M/S. SWITCHING AVO ELECTRO POWER LIMITED | Classification of Supply | FACTS AND ISSUE OF THE CASE: In this case the Appellant supplies power solution products and is also a manufacturer of power backups and solar products, including uninterrupted power supply system. The Appellant submitted written submissions and argued that when UPS comprising of static converter and an external battery is supplied it falls under Tariff Head 8504 and is taxable @ 18% under item No. 375 of Schedule III of the GST Act. The main argument put forth by the appellant was that UPS cannot function without battery as such it is an integral part of UPS and hence it is naturally bundled and supplied in conjunction with each other and hence the supply of static converter along with external battery should be construed as a composite supply and not a mixed supply. |
| 62 | GSTIndia.biz/WB/Global/2018/24.07.18/AAR-7 | Global Reach Education Services Private Limited | Export | The Appellant has filed an Appeal against the order that promoting Foreign Universities in India among prospective students does'nt qualify as an export. Ref AAR Order No. GST-ARA-15/2017-18/B-30 dt. 08.05.2018 |
| 63 | GIB/MH/JSW ENERGY/02.07.2018/AAAR-17 | JSW Energy Limited | Classification | The Appellant has filed an Appeal against the ruling that proposed transaction would amount to manufacture and not job work. Ref. AAR Order No. GST-ARA-05/2017/B- 08 Mumbai, dt. 05.03.2018 |
| 64 | GIB/GJ/RB CONSTRUCTION/16-5-2018/AAAR-32 | M/s. R.B. Construction Company | Work Contract | Facts & Issue of the Ruling The appellant M/s. R.B. Construction Company is engaged in execution of works contract. The appellant was registered under the erstwhile Gujarat Value Added Tax Act and was holding a permission to pay tax on a lump-sum basis. The appellant was exempt from holding registration under Service Tax regime. The appellant had raised queries before the Advance Ruling Authority. The same ruling can be found on the following link - GIB/GJ/RB CONSTRUCTION/AAR-59 . Aggrieved by the aforesaid advance ruling, the appellant has filed the present appeal. The appellant has submitted that their claim of transition credit must be allowed. It is submitted that only part ownership of the structure is transferred to the customer of the appellant and that the project is still in semi-finished stage. It is submitted that the entire quantity of pipe was supplied to RMC in pre-GST era. The running bills which the appellant had issued would be attuned in a way that 90% of the amount is realized, on laying the pipe and then the further balance 10% would be realized after testing and commissioning. It is submitted that the running bills to be issued post GST would cover two elements i.e. one towards the transfer of balance 10% ownership of pipes and another towards the labor charges. It is submitted that there is no iota of doubt about the fact that only part ownership in works was transferred before 1st July 2017. The appellant submitted that in its case, as the balance 10% ownership was nowhere transferred before the advent of Goods and Services Tax Act, it is entitled to claim part of the transition credit represented by duties and taxes of excise and VAT paid by it on the pipes. It is submitted that this has been absolutely missed out by the Ld. Advance Ruling Authority and hence, the order of advance ruling authority is bad in law. It is submitted that the project i.e. contract of the appellant is still in work-in-process stage and that only a part ownership of the pipes is transferred as per theory of accretion. When after the applicability of Goods and Services Tax Act, the balance ownership of 10% is passed, in view of the provisions ingrained in Section 140(6), the claim of input credit under transition provisions must be declared as held admissible. The appellant submitted that it is in possession of duty paid documents and for the purchases made within 12 months immediately preceding 1st July, 2017. Thus, the appellant is entitled to claim of proportionate tax credit to the extent ownership of the asset created under the contract was not transferred before 1st July, 2017. |