The Gujarat AAR refused to answer questions regarding documentary proof and invoice endorsement for SEZ zero-rated supplies. The Authority held that such issues do not fall within the categories permitted under Section 97 of the CGST Act.
The Gujarat AAR held that AAC bricks cannot be classified under Chapter 69 as ceramic products because the autoclaving process does not satisfy the firing requirement prescribed for ceramic goods. The ruling classified AAC bricks under Heading 6810 as articles of cement or concrete.
Gujarat AAR held that ITC on construction of a concrete VCV tower used for EHV cable manufacturing is admissible because the structure functions as foundational and structural support for plant and machinery under Section 17 of the CGST Act.
The Gujarat AAR held that black mineral water containing added minerals but no sugar, sweeteners, or flavouring is classifiable under HSN 22011010. The ruling confirms applicability of 5% GST under Entry 146 of Notification No. 09/2025.
Gujarat AAR held that input tax credit on goods and services used for constructing a CCV Tower was admissible as the structure formed an essential structural support for manufacturing machinery. The ruling clarified that such support systems are covered within “plant and machinery” under Section 17(5) of the CGST Act.
The ruling held that supplementary coaching services are not exempt since the provider is not an “educational institution.” Such services are taxable at 18% as commercial coaching.
The authority held that electricity is not fuel denying concessional GST rates for electric bus rentals. The key takeaway is that such services fall under the residual entry and attract 18% GST
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 case examined GST applicability on digital marketing training services. The ruling held that NSDC-approved training partners are eligible for exemption under Entry 69.
The ruling examines whether construction services for machinery foundations qualify for ITC. It holds that such foundations are integral to plant and machinery and not barred under Section 17(5). The decision clarifies eligibility where structures directly support manufacturing equipment.
