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.
In re Translog Direct Private Limited (GST AAR Tamil Nadu) In the case at hand, the applicant is extending the ‘support services for water transport’ which includes services facilitating berthing of the vessel, liaising with jurisdictional authorities and attend to the requirement of the vessel when the vessel is in Indian territory and the service […]
In re Ultra Tech Suspension Private Limited (GST AAR Uttarakhand) What is the appropriate classification and applicable rate of the goods namely U-Bolt, Front Spring Bolts & Spring Pins manufactured and supplied by the Applicant? (i) The goods U-Bolt and Front Spring Bolt made up of Steel, manufactured and supplied by the applicant fall under […]
In re Coperion Ideal Private Limited (GST AAR Uttar Pradesh) Q-1 Whether supply of components of Pneumatic Conveying System by the applicant to its customers on High Sea Sales basis will be treated neither as supply of goods nor as supply of service by virtue of Entry 8 to Schedule III of CGST Act? Ans-The […]
In re Suzlon Energy Limited (GST AAR Gujarat) The specially designed Transformers for Wind Operated Electricity Generators which are meant to perform dual function of Step Down and Step Up manufactured by Suzlon and supplied to the customers of Suzlon as a part of Wind Operated Electricity Generator be treated as part of Wind Operated […]
In re Siddartha Constructions (GST AAR Andhra Pradesh) The applicant claims that the works involved in the contract are used for the offices of the Hon’ble Minister for Industries and not for the business interests or transactions of APIIC. The point under discussion is whether the work involved, i.e, providing Power Infrastructure, Fire Fighting & […]
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 […]
In re Time Technoplast Ltd (GST AAAR Karnataka) It is a settled issue that benefit under a conditional notification cannot be extended in case of non-fulfillment of conditions and/or non-compliance of procedure prescribed therein. The basic rule in interpretation of any statutory provision is that the plain words of the statute must be given effect […]
In re Workplace Options India Pvt Ltd (GST AAAR Karnataka) The Appellant has argued before us that determination of liability to pay tax on any goods or services is a matter which is well within the ambit of an advance ruling and if the said determination involves examining the place of supply, then the same […]
