Without entering into classification or tax rate issues, the Authority held the application to be beyond its statutory scope. The ruling underscores strict limits on advance ruling jurisdiction.
The AAR declined to admit the application as scrutiny and adjudication on the same issue had already commenced. It held that advance rulings cannot be sought once proceedings are pending or decided.
The AAR held that a construction site with sufficient permanence and resources constitutes a fixed establishment. As a result, the contractor must obtain GST registration in the State where the site is located.
The ruling clarifies that selling a capitalised car attracts GST on the entire consideration when the seller is not a second-hand goods dealer, rejecting margin-based valuation.
The authority held that road transportation of goods with issuance of a consignment note amounts to GTA services. It further ruled that such services to unregistered customers are exempt under Sl. No. 21A.
The Authority held that non-compete services must be split between India and overseas operations. Only the portion linked to overseas restraint qualified as export of services and zero-rated supply.
The Authority held that even where actual land value is available through a sale deed, GST valuation must follow the deemed one-third deduction rule. The key takeaway is that actual land value cannot replace the statutory valuation mechanism.
The AAR held that advance ruling can be sought only for supplies made by the applicant. Since hostel services were provided by the tenant, the application was rejected as not maintainable.
The AAR closed the proceedings after the applicant withdrew the advance ruling application following a change in circumstances, without examining GST issues on merits.
The ruling holds that GST credit on construction inputs for a rental commercial property is blocked under Section 17(5)(d), even though rent is a taxable supply.
