The applicant in its application for rectifying an Order No. 22 for Advance Ruling issued by Authority for Advance Ruling on 25.01.2019, submitted that in online application, name of the company and GSTIN were correctly filled but while submitting the hard copy of application form GST ARA-01 name of the company and GSTIN were in advertently submitted Rudhrabhishek Enterprises Limited and GSTIN 09AAGCR1735A1ZP instead of Rudrabhishek Enterprises Limited and GSTIN 09AAACR0707L2ZD.
In Re Resistoflex Dynamics Pvt. Ltd (GST AAR Uttar Pradesh) (a) Whether the air-springs imported by the Applicant are classifiable under HSN heading 8607 (i.e. parts of coach work of railway running stock) and thus covered under Entry No. 241 of Schedule-I of GST rate notifications? It will not be appropriate to classify air springs […]
In re Dabur India Ltd. (GST AAR Uttar Pradesh) The issue presented before us, the classification of `Odomos’ has to be examined under the relevant provisions of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as to whether the product `Odomos’ should be classified under Chapter-38 or under Chapter 30 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. We find […]
In re Autometers AlliancgoodsPvt. Ltd. (GST AAR Uttar Pradesh) From the characteristic of the Vigilance Control Device (VCD), Diagnostic Terminal (DT) & Master Controller System (MCS), chapter Notes, Classification Rules and above discussion, they all fall in Code 8530 10 10 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, […]
In re Sheetal Tyagi (GST AAR Uttar Pradesh) Whether the members of RWA are liable to pay GST on the services received by them directly from third party despite maintenance charges being less than Rs. 7500/- per month? Ans- The ruling cannot be given as the matter doesn’t fall within the purview of ‘Advance Ruling’ […]
In re Rudhrabhishek Enterprises Ltd. (GST AAR Uttar Pradesh) Whether the Project Development Service (i.e. Detailed project Report Service) and Project Management Consultancy Services (PMCS) provided by the applicant to recipient under the contract of SUDA; and the Project Management Consultancy Services (PMC) under the Contract for PMAY would qualify as an activity in relation […]
In re General Mills India Pvt. Ltd. (GST AAR Uttar Pradesh) In respect of point (i) to the grounds of Appeal, we hold that the use of the name of the Applicant i.e. ‘General Mills India Pvt. Ltd on the packaging for supply of Products by the Applicant solely for the limited purpose of complying […]
In re Hariom Enterprises (GST AAR Uttar Pradesh) Whether non Laminated Bags manufactured by the Applicant from HDPE/PP Strips of width not exceeding 5mm, used for packing sugar (sugar bag), Flour (Flour bag), Food grain (Grain Bag) and other similar bags are classifiable under Tariff Heading 6305 or heading 3923 of the Customs Tariff Act […]
In Re Data Matics Global Services Ltd. (GST AAR Uttar Pradesh) (i) Whether a contract can be treated as Composite Contract under GST if it involves making of supply of goods and services which are inter- connected and inter- dependent on each other even though BOQ mentions separate value of goods and services. A contract […]
In re SPFL Securities Ltd. (GST AAR Uttar Pradesh) Question – Taxability on delayed payment charges on reimbursement of amount by client to applicant, where client failed to pay amount paid to stock Exchanges for purchase of securities with T+1 (Trading day plus one day) under SEBI regulation norms and deducted by Stock Exchange from […]
