Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : In re TE Connectivity Services India Pvt. Ltd. (GST AAR Karnataka)
Appeal Number : Advance Ruling No. KAR ADRG 2/2023
Date of Judgement/Order : 11/01/2023
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

In re TE Connectivity Services India Pvt. Ltd. (GST AAR Karnataka)

M/s. TE Connectivity Services India Pvt. Ltd.,(herein after referred to as ‘Applicant), 6th – 9th Floor, Wing-B, Block 1, Kalyani Magnum, Doraisanipalya, JP Nagar, Phase 4, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru Rural, Karnataka-560076, having GSTIN 29AAFCT3474R1ZF, have filed an application for Advance Ruling under Section 97 of CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 104 of CGST Rules, 2017 and Section 97 of KGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 104 of KGST Rules, 2017, in form GST ARA-01 discharging the fee of Rs.5,000/-each under the CGST Act and KGST Act.

2. The applicant stated that they are engaged in export of services to their customers, located outside India; they have an office in Karnataka from where all the service exports are carried out; they have arranged for the canteens and transportation services for their employees by entering into a contractual agreement with the third party service providers and in this connection, the applicant makes subsidized deduction from the employees’ salary who are availing transportation services and/or canteen services within the factory.

3. In view of the above, the applicant has sought advance ruling in respect of the following questions:

a) Whether the subsidized deduction made by the Applicant from the employees who are availing transportation services and/or canteen services within the office would be considered as a “supply” by the Applicant under the provisions of Section 7 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Karnataka Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

b) In case answer to question no. 1 is yes,

Whether GST is applicable on the amount paid by the Applicant to the Service

Providers or only on the amount recovered from the employees?

4. The applicant were given an opportunity of personal hearing on 10.11.2022 and Sri. Ravi Kumar Bhatia, C.A. 86 Authorised Representative appeared and reiterated their understanding of the issues on which advance ruling was sought for. However the applicant vide their letter dated 16.12.2022, requested this authority to permit them to withdraw their application quoting the reason that the matter has already been clarified in multiple rulings and thus no need for any ruling on the queries raised by them.

5. In view of the foregoing, we pass the following

RULING

The application filed by the Applicant for advance ruling is disposed of as withdrawn.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Ads Free tax News and Updates
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
February 2025
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728