In re Granules USA Inc (GST AAR Telangana) It is to inform that Section 96 of the CGST & SGST Acts clearly state territorial nexus of an Advance Ruling authority so that an authority for Advance Ruling shall function as such an Authority for Advance ruling for that State or Union Territory in which it […]
In re Data Processing Forms Pvt. Ltd. (GST AAR Gujarat) A. Whether from the facts and circumstances of the case, supplies made by the applicant to the Examination Boards and Educational Institution are entitled for exemption from payment of Good and Service Tax under Sr. No. 66, Heading No. 9992 (education Services) of the exemption […]
In re Team Lease Education Foundation (GST AAR Gujarat) 1. Whether, the Applicant is acting as a pure agent of the Industry partner to the extent of reimbursement received towards stipend paid to Trainees on behalf of Industry partner as part of training agreement and therefore the said reimbursement is not chargeable to GST? TLEF […]
In re Cauvery Neeravari Nigama Limited (GST AAR Karnataka) The issue before us is the admissibility / maintainability of the instant application and the said admissibility is governed by the first proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, which reads as under: The Authority shall not admit the application where the question raised […]
In re Pankaj Enterprises (GST AAR Karnataka) The applicant has sought clarification about determination of taxable value of commercial immovable property for the purpose of GST liability i.e whether the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed between builder and proposed purchaser or guidance value fixed by the state government authorities for the purpose of […]
NKAS Services Private Limited Vs. State of Jharkhand (High Court of Jharkhand) A perusal of the impugned show cause notice at Annexure-1 creates a clear impression that it is a Show Cause notice (SCN) issued in a format without even striking out any relevant portions and without stating the contraventions committed by the petitioner. The […]
Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Vs Commissioner of Service Tax Delhi (CESTAT Delhi) In the present case, it is true that no service tax was chargeable on the activity of the appellant, viz., carrying the advertisements in its broadcast and telecast. Therefore, the Government cannot collect service tax. It is also true that Section […]
Ingram Micro Inc. Vs ITO (Bombay High Court) The undisputed fact is that petitioner is not the purchaser of shares of THL. Respondent no.1 has failed to appreciate that the shares have been purchased by IMAHI, a wholly owned subsidiary of petitioner and not by petitioner and, therefore, the question of Section 195 of the […]
Tata Consumer Products Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) From a perusal of the impugned Order-in-Appeal, I find that though the appellate authority has taken note of the claim of the appellant as regards the inadvertent/clerical error, but has not accepted on the ground that the same was not brought to the notice […]
In case of normal taxable supply, supplier issues tax invoice to recipient and receives the amount from recipient along with GST and then discharge his GST liability to the Govt. It is referred to as ‘forward Charge’. In ‘reverse charge’ supplier shall not charge GST on invoice and receives the amount from recipient without GST.
