In re Sagar Stevedores Pvt. Ltd. (GST AAR Gujarat) 1. The service of transportation of goods carried out by M/s.Shree Sagar Stevedoirs pvt.ltd. from Magdalla Port, Surat to its General Lighterage Area of Magdalla Port (from where the Mother Vessel are anchored) or vice versa, does not fall within the state of Gujarat and does […]
In re Jainish Anantkumar Patel (GST AAR Gujarat) Question: The applicant wants to trade the below mentioned items:- 1. Supari in grated form of cut in different shape in a separate pouch packing. 2. Lime (Chuno) in a separate packing. 3. Tobacco (Chewing Tobacco) in a separate packing. All the above three items will be […]
In re Dipakkumar Kantilal Chotai (Talod Gruh Udyog) (GST AAR Gujarat) (1) Khaman mix flour, Gota mix flour, Handwa mix flour, Dahi wada mix flour, Dalwada mix flour, Meduvada mix flour, Pudla mix flour, Moong bhajiya mix flour, Chorafali mix flour, Bhajiya mix flour, Dhokla mix flour, Idli mix flour and Dosa mix flour are […]
In re Shiroki Technico India Pvt. Ltd. (GST AAR Gujarat) We find that the ‘seat adjuster’ merely helps in the adjustment of the seat i.e. moving it back and forth as per requirement/convenience and merely improves the efficiency and convenience of the seat but does not form a part of the seat. Even while looking […]
In re Dharmshil Agencies (GST AAR Gujarat) In this case, the moot point to be decided is as to whether the services provided by the applicant are liable to CGST and SGST or IGST? For this, we first need to know the nature of the transaction carried out by the applicant. As per the submission […]
In re Piyush Jayantilal Dobaria (Trade Name : Jay Khodiyar Agency) (GST AAR Gujarat) 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 […]
The HC held that the impugned provisional attachment of the Petitioner’s bank account was in vogue till 27.05.2020. The communication/order dated 28.05.2019 ceased to operate with the effect from 27.05.2020. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were directed to de- freeze the Petitioners’ bank account.
Gammon India Ltd Vs CST (CESTAT Mumbai) The Mumbai CESTAT, in Gammon India Ltd Vs. CST held that demand on Mobilization advance is not consistent with law and deserves to be set aside. Proviso to Section 2(31) of the CGST Act 2017 provides that deposits shall not be considered as payment made unless the supplier applies […]
In re Heritage foods limited (GST AAR Andhra Pradesh) What is the appropriate chapter under the customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) under which the product ‘Flavoured Milk’ can be classified as per the explanation (iv) of the Notification No.1/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated 28 June 2017? AAR held that it is a […]
Where assessee had received entire consideration and possession of the property was also handed over in the assessment year 2004-05, he would be exigible towards capital gain tax only for the assessment year 2004-05 and not for the assessment year 2007-08 when proper sale deed was executed and registered. Just because capital gain accrued to assessee has escaped tax in assessment year 2004-05, the same cannot be brought to tax subsequently in assessment year 2007-08, therefore, AO was directed to delete the addition made.
