AAR Himachal Pradesh

No ITC on transportation of employees which is not obligatory under Law

In re Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India (GST AAR Himachal Pradesh)

 If the facility provided by a taxpayer for transportation of employees is not obligatory under any law, for the time being in force then no ITC will be available to such a taxpayer. The applicant will however be eligible to claim ITC for the service supplied at 12% GST Rate if the conditions laid down in the second proviso to section 17...

Read More

Penalty on Goods Transported for repair without proper documents cannot exceed Rs. 10000

Neva plantation Private Limited Vs ACST&E (GST Appellate Authority Himachal Pradesh)

Neva plantation Private Limited Vs ACST&E (GST Appellate Authority, Himachal Pradesh) It appears that there is no dispute regarding quantity/quality of goods and further it has been clearly mentioned on the challan that the goods are not for sale only for repair. Since the transaction has no tax implications, the proper office while a...

Read More

First GST AA Decision- Section 129 proceeding cannot be initiated for Minor mistake(s) in e-way bill

M/s K.B Enterprises Vs Asst. Commissioner State Taxes & Excise (Appellate Authority, Himachal Pradesh)

In case a consignment of goods is accompanied with an invoice or any other specified document and also an e-way bill, proceedings under section 129 of the CGST Act may not be initiated in case of minor mistakes like error in one or two digits/characters of the vehicle number....

Read More

Protein Powder with Vitamins and Minerals classifiable under HS code 3004

In re M/s Newtramax Healthcare (GST AAR Himachal Pradesh)

We are of the considered opinion that all the goods being manufactured by the applicant which are mentioned (including the goods mentioned at Sr. No. 20 and 21) in the drug license issued to the applicant by the competent authority and have the labels as per the standards prescribed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 can be classifie...

Read More

Advance ruling application not admittable if applicant is not supplier

In re M/s Bakson Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (GST AAR Himachal Pradesh)

The applicant is not engaged in the manufacture and supply of ENA presently. The representatives were asked to submit as to why the applicant is seeking advance ruling on this issue in view of the fact that advance ruling is binding only on the takpayer who has sought it. They were told that a ruling on this issue will not help the applic...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (4,933)
Company Law (6,557)
Custom Duty (7,950)
DGFT (4,320)
Excise Duty (4,389)
Fema / RBI (4,356)
Finance (4,610)
Income Tax (34,421)
SEBI (3,669)
Service Tax (3,592)

Search Posts by Date

September 2020
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930