The Tamil Nadu Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) re-examined the classification of Tapioca Flour (Thippi) sought by V.S. Trading Company. The AAR ruled that the product is a residue of starch manufacture (HSN 2303 1000) and is taxable at 5%, rejecting the applicants claim for Nil rate under HSN 1106.
AAR ruled that men’s pyjama sets consisting of a woven cotton shirt and pant fall under HSN 620721. For packs of 2 sets costing less than Rs.1,000 per piece, GST applies at 5% (CGST 2.5% + SGST 2.5%) as per Notification No.01/2017.
The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) clarifies that Cotton Seed De-oiled Cake (HSN 2306) is fully exempt from GST effective from September 22, 2017, irrespective of its end-use as animal or aquatic feed. The ruling resolves supplier inconsistency and nullifies questions regarding Input Tax Credit (ITC).
The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) held that construction services for a Service Apartment project must be classified as Commercial Apartment under GST, attracting the 12% rate, due to land-use restrictions and the nature of the apartments, despite the RERA registering it as a Residential Project.
GSTAT accepted DGAP’s repeated findings that the company did not contravene Section 171 of the CGST Act, confirming that GST rate reductions were passed on to recipients as required.
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) accepted the DGAP’s final report, concluding that IREO Victory Valley Pvt. Ltd. did not contravene anti-profiteering provisions under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, as the project received no additional Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefit post-GST.
CESTAT held that confiscation of dry dates and penalties under the Customs Act were unjustified as the Department failed to prove the goods’ foreign origin. Opinions based on visual inspection were deemed without evidentiary value.
Delhi High Court sets aside GST demand order where SCN uploaded under “Additional Notices” tab, directs fresh reply & hearing; validity of extension notifications still pending.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside an Appellate Authority’s order by clarifying the calculation of the four-month limitation period for filing a GST appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The judgment confirms that the first day is excluded, the period is calculated in ‘months’ (not days), and the corresponding date rule applies, validating an appeal filed on the last day of the extended grace period.
HC held that large cash payments exceeding Rs.20,000 may be exempt if properly substantiated under Rule 6DD and business needs; Tribunal’s earlier disallowance set aside.
