The authority allowed withdrawal of a GST advance ruling application before deciding on tax rate and classification. The case highlights that no ruling is issued when an application is withdrawn unconditionally.c
The Authority disposed of the application after the applicant withdrew it unconditionally. No ruling was given on GST exemption for services to a municipal authority.
The applicant withdrew its GST advance ruling request on key real estate issues before a ruling could be made. The authority accepted the withdrawal and issued no findings on taxability.
The authority allowed withdrawal of an advance ruling application upon the applicant’s request. The case was closed without examining classification merits.
The applicant sought clarity on GST classification of LadduBars but later withdrew the application. The authority accepted the withdrawal and issued no findings on classification or tax rate.
AAR held that flats given free to society members are not truly free but exchanged for development rights. Such transactions qualify as supply under GST and attract tax accordingly.
The issue involved classification of a PVC pipe production machine under customs law. The Authority held that continuous extrusion, not moulding, determines classification. The key takeaway is that process type governs tariff classification.
The case examined whether a wearable smart ring is a communication device or a measuring instrument. The authority held that its primary function is measurement through sensors, leading to classification under Heading 9031.
The applicants claim for classification under fan category was denied due to lack of fan or blower in the product. The ruling emphasized strict interpretation of tariff headings. The key takeaway is that product features must match classification criteria.
The ruling held that dashcams are continuous video recording devices and not digital still image cameras. Hence, exemption under Sl. No. 288 was denied, but concessional duty was allowed.
