In re Royal Carbon Black Private Limited (GST AAAR Maharashtra) AAAR have also examined the impugned Advance Ruling passed by the MAAR, wherein the MAAR has refrained from passing the advance ruling in the matter citing the reason that the Appellant has not provided the details regarding the chemical composition of the impugned product, i.e., […]
In re KPC Projects Ltd. (GST AAR Maharashtra) From the submissions made by the applicant, we find that in the instant case there is Composite supply of works contract provided to UPRNN, a Government Entity by way of construction of a clinical establishment i.e. a hospital. However we also find that, the above mentioned Rate […]
In re KPC Projects Ltd. (GST AAR Maharashtra) In the instant case there is Composite supply of works contract provided to UPRNN, a Government Entity by way of construction of a Residential Quarters meant for the use of the employees of ESIC and therefore, it can be said that the supply is in respect of […]
In re Baranj Coal Mines Private Limited (GST AAR Maharashtra) In the subject case, we find that the applicant (supplier of service) and KPCL (recipient of service) are not related persons and price is the sole consideration for the supply. Further, from Article 6.1.3 and Article 29.1.2 of the Mining Agreement it is clear that […]
In re Karve Institute of Social Service (GST AAR Maharashtra) The applicant has submitted a letter dated 28.04.2022 and requested that they may be allowed to voluntarily withdraw their subject application filed on 01.09.2021. The request of the applicant to withdraw their application voluntarily and unconditionally is hereby allowed, without going into the merits or […]
In re CLR Skills Training Foundation (Beeup Skills Foundation) (GST AAR Maharashtra) AAR find that, both the Agreements attached by the applicant as ‘Specimen Copies” in respect of the subject application do not provide a clear picture of the actual facts in respect of the present matter before us and we therefore, cannot answer the […]
In Re Aryan Contractor Pvt Ltd (GST AAR Maharashtra) The questions for obtaining an Advance Ruling can be asked by a supplier of goods or services or both, only in relation to the supply being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken and not in relation to any supply of goods or services or both which […]
AAR held that assessee providing marketing services to a foreign company and acting as a conduit between a foreign company and its Indian customers to be considered as intermediary.
Since provisions of Sec 95 (a) are very clear and unambiguous that only a supplier can file an application for advance ruling, the contentions of the applicant are not accepted. The said provisions were discussed with the applicant’s authorized representative during the course of the final hearing and he agreed that the questions are not maintainable and not capable of being covered under Scope of section 95(a) of GST Act.
In re Crystal Crop Protection Limited (GST AAR Maharashtra) Question 1: – Whether the transaction of transfer of business by way of merger of two GST registrations/ distinct persons would constitute ‘supply’ under the GST law? Answer: – Answered in the affirmative. Question 2: – Whether the transaction of transfer of business by way of merger of two […]
