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 […]
In re Cosmic Ferro Alloys Limited (GST AAR West Bengal) Questions Raised Whether transfer of an unit by the applicant with all the assets including taking over all the liabilities by the purchaser for a lump sum consideration would amount as supply of goods or supply of services and whether the transaction would be covered […]
In re Medreich Limited (GST AAR Karnataka) AAR observed on examination of the records that the issues/questions raised by the applicant in the instant application have already been taken up by the audit team, in the case of applicant under the provisions of the CGST Act 2017. From the audit report mentioned supra it is […]
Determination of place of supply is not covered under any of the clauses (a) to (g) of Section 97(2) of the CGST Act 2017. Further, the use of term ‘shall’, is an imperative command restricting the scope of advance ruling only to the questions enumerated in the said sub-section. Thus, to answer the question relating to determination of place of supply, is beyond the scope of advance ruling. This authority, therefore, cannot answer the first question in the application.
In re Keysight Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. (GST AAR Karnataka) The Notification No.45/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017 and Notification No.45/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017 stipulates the rate of CGST / IGST @ 5%, if the goods of computer software is supplied to public funded research institutions subject to fulfillment of the conditions prescribed under column […]
