The issue involved GST classification and rate on rice bran oil. The application was withdrawn after a government notification clarified the applicable tax, and no ruling was given on merits.
The AAR held that advance ruling cannot be sought on services received by the applicant. Since tax liability lies with the supplier, the application was not maintainable and was withdrawn.
The AAR held that medicines and consumables supplied during treatment are part of composite healthcare services. As the principal supply is exempt, the entire supply qualifies for GST exemption.
The issue was whether export value includes freight, insurance, and duties. The AAR held all such costs under DDP must be included in transaction value for IGST payment.
The Court held that failure to personally serve notice before cancelling GST registration violated principles of natural justice. It directed reconsideration of the case on merits, emphasizing fairness in procedural compliance.
The issue was whether a single show cause notice can cover multiple years. The Court held such composite notices invalid and directed issuance of separate notices.
The issue was whether software purchased under high sea sales attracts service tax. The Tribunal held that such transactions qualify as import of service and are taxable.
The Tribunal ruled that interest earned from mandatory bank deposits by a co-operative credit society qualifies as business income and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P.
The issue was whether telecom interconnect charges qualify as royalty. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court view that such payments are not taxable as royalty.
The issue was whether telecom interconnect charges qualify as royalty. The Court held they do not, relying on earlier precedent and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
