The case examined taxability of bio-mining and waste remediation services. The Authority held that such services qualify as pure services and are exempt under Notification 12/2017.
The ruling holds that GST input tax credit is available on employee transport services when mandated by law. Statutory obligation under labour law overrides the blocked credit restriction.
The Authority ruled that questions on ITC set-off procedures fall outside the scope of advance ruling. Applications on procedural aspects are not admissible under Section 97.
The ruling clarifies that services provided by associations to members are taxable under GST due to statutory deeming of separate persons. The principle of mutuality cannot exclude such transactions from tax.
The issue was whether waste remediation services are taxable under GST. The Authority held that although classifiable under SAC 9994, the services qualify as pure services and are exempt. It clarified that services linked to municipal functions are eligible for exemption.
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 The application was withdrawn after a government notification clarified the applicable tax, and no ruling was given on merits.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 Since tax liability lies with the supplier, the application was not maintainable and was withdrawn.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 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.
