In re Vallalar Borewells (GST AAR Tamilnadu) Q1. Whether the following supply of services provided by the applicant are in relation to agricultural operations directly in connection with raising of agricultural produce i.Drilling of Borewells for supply of water for agricultural operations like cultivation including seeding, planting and ploughing. ii. Letting out of compressors for […]
In re Aravind Drillers (GST AAR Tamil Nadu) 1. Drilling of Borewells for supply of water in agricultural land is not ‘Support Service for agriculture classifiable under ‘SAC 9986’ for the reasons stated in para 8.3 above 2. Letting out of compressors for pumping of water from the borewells to the agricultural field is not […]
In re M/s Faiveley Transport Rail Technologies India Limited (GST AAR Tamil Nadu) DGGSTI has taken up investigations on the classifications adopted by the applicant on their supplies to Indian Railways and classified under CTH 8607. The subject goods are supplied to `Indian Railways’ and the applicant classify the same under CTH 8607. The application […]
In re Sumeru Infra Solution (GST AAR Madhya Pradesh) This Authority is of the view that based on the detailed reading and understanding of Section 97 of the CGST Act, an application for Advance Ruling can only be made to determine the ‘admissibility of input tax credit (ITC)‘ on any goods or services or both. […]
In re Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Company Limited (GST AAR Madhya Pradesh) In respect of first question, regarding classification of supply in Entry No. 6 of Schedule II to the GST Act we are unable to answer the question on account of insufficient information provided by the applicant. Further in respect of first question, regarding […]
In re Smt Vimla Devi, C/o M/s Sai Steel Co & Consultants (GST AAR Himachal Pradesh) application in this case is not accompanied by requisite fee of Rs 10,000/- (i.e Rs 5,000/- each under CGST and SGST), therefore the same is rejected. This ruling however does not in any way affect the right of the applicant […]
In re Dempo Diary Industries Limited (AAR Karnataka) The applicant themselves admitted that M/s KMF hold 90% shares and hence have management / administrative control over the applicant. M/s KMF are the owners of `Nandini’ brand, against whom an offence case is pending before DGGI, Bengaluru on classification of flavoured milk. Thus it is very […]
In re Bengaluru Co-Operative Milk Union Ltd (GST AAR Karnataka) Whether the Flavored Milk is liable to be classified under HSN 0402 99 90 or under 2202 99 30 or under any other Chapter? The applicant themselves admitted that they are one of the share holders of M/s KMF, who are the owners of `Nandini’ […]
In re Sri. V. Mohandas Pai – Prop. Dheeraj Enterprises. (GST AAR Karnataka) We examine the records and observe that the instant application has been filed on 22.09.2020 and the question raised there in is about the classification of the services being provided by the applicant. It is an undisputed fact that a search, of […]
In re Manyam Venkata Rajini (GST AAR Andhra Pradesh) Question: Whether in the facts and circumstances the contributions to National Mineral Exploration Trust (NMET) and District Mineral Foundation (DMF) under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR) read with National Mineral Exploration Trust Rules, 2015 (‘NMETR’) and Mines and Minerals (Contribution to […]
