The AAAR observed that customers were only informed about an unspecified Transporter facilitated through the e-commerce platform. It held that absence of certainty regarding the contracting party weakened the claim of an independent GTA service.
The Tamil Nadu AAAR held that supply of food to corporate clients under contractual arrangements amounted to contract food service taxable at 18% GST. The authority ruled that menu planning, quality checks, delivery, and service obligations went beyond mere sale of food.
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 AAAR held that GST paid on lease rentals for land used to construct a factory is not eligible for ITC. It ruled that Section 17(5)(d) clearly blocks such credit irrespective of timing or usage stage.
The authority analysed whether an industrial plant is movable or immovable. It held that the plant, installed for long-term use and not marketable as a whole, is immovable property. Consequently, ITC on related inputs was denied.
The Authority dismissed the Departments appeal, confirming that geomembranes are textile products. The ruling relied on established judicial precedent and the product’s manufacturing process involving weaving.
Link Up Textiles Private Limited (GST AAAR Tamilnadu) The appeal was filed by the appellant under Section 100(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 against Advance Ruling No. 42/AAR/2025 dated 08.10.2025 issued by the Tamil Nadu Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR). The […]
The appellate authority condoned an 18-day delay in filing a GST appeal, accepting illness of a key partner as sufficient cause. The case will now proceed for hearing on merits.
The authority condoned a 28-day delay after finding that technical issues on the GST portal prevented timely filing. It held that such circumstances constitute sufficient cause under Section 100(2).
The appellate authority held that the advance ruling was declared non-maintainable due to absence of invoices and supporting records. As fresh documents were produced in appeal, the matter was remanded for fresh examination on merits.
