The Kerala AAR held that advance ruling applications cannot be based on hypothetical scenarios or academic questions. The Authority rejected the application because it did not relate to any actual or proposed supply undertaken by the applicant.
The Kerala AAR held that medicines, consumables, room rent, and ancillary services provided during inpatient treatment form part of a composite healthcare supply. Such inpatient healthcare services qualify for GST exemption under Notification No. 12/2017.
Kerala AAR held that used gunny bags sold after cattle feed manufacturing are reusable packing bags under HSN 6305 and not scrap. The ruling clarified that GST would apply at 5% if the sale value does not exceed Rs. 2500 per piece.
The Kerala AAR rejected an advance ruling application after noting that the issue of GST applicability on member transactions had already been adjudicated in earlier proceedings. The Authority held the application was barred under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act.
The Authority ruled that the President and Members of the statutory temple board are not “directors” under GST notifications. Accordingly, reverse charge GST was held inapplicable on honorarium and sitting fees.
The Kerala AAR held that while ITC on purchase of used vehicles is barred under the margin scheme, credit on repairs, refurbishment, and other business expenses remains admissible.
The ruling examined whether GST applies to centage charges collected for PMC services rendered to Government and local authorities. It held that such consultancy services qualify as pure services linked to constitutional functions and are exempt from GST, subject to conditions.
The Authority held that treatment of psoriasis, dermatitis, fungal infections, and similar conditions constitutes healthcare services by a clinical establishment and is exempt from GST under the relevant notification.
The Authority held that suppliers of goods cannot issue tax invoices on advances because Notification No. 66/2017 prescribes mandatory timing of tax liability. The ruling clarifies that advances must be documented through receipt vouchers only.
The Authority held that the recipient, though government-controlled, is a registered society and not the Government. The ruling clarified that no exemption applies and ITC is fully available.
