The issue concerned GST liability on electricity supplied through a solar power plant. The AAR held that electrical energy is exempt from GST and no registration is required when only exempt goods are supplied.
The issue involved classification of a fan drive assembly used in vehicle cooling systems. The AAR held that the product operates on viscous fluid principles and qualifies as a fluid coupling under HSN 8483.
The issue was whether taxpayers could choose between concessional and standard GST rates. The AAR held that once classified as outdoor catering, the 5% rate without ITC is mandatory.
The appellate authority found that facts presented on appeal differed from the original application. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication due to inconsistency in submissions.
The court held that a show cause notice lacking clear reasons and supporting documents violates natural justice. It quashed the retrospective cancellation, allowing fresh proceedings as per law.
The authority held that an automated locker system is classifiable under CTH 8303 as its essential function is secure storage of valuables. The ruling clarifies that automation features do not override the primary character of lockers.
The authority refused to admit an advance ruling application as the classification of roasted areca nuts had already been decided by a High Court. The ruling highlights the statutory bar under Section 28-I(2) when issues are previously adjudicated.
The authority declined to rule on tariff classification as a similar matter was pending before the High Court. It held that Section 28-I bars decisions in such cases. The applicant may reapply after final adjudication.
The Court examined whether ITC can be denied when the supplier fails to deposit tax. It upheld the provision, ruling that ITC depends on actual tax payment to the Government. The key takeaway is that purchaser compliance alone is insufficient without supplier tax remittance.
The authority examined whether automatic service charges violate consumer rights. It ruled that default billing of such charges is coercive and constitutes an unfair trade practice. The case reinforces that service charges must remain voluntary.
