Gujarat AAR held that input tax credit on goods and services used for constructing a CCV Tower was admissible as the structure formed an essential structural support for manufacturing machinery. The ruling clarified that such support systems are covered within “plant and machinery” under Section 17(5) of the CGST Act.
The Tamil Nadu AAAR held that supply of food to corporate clients under contractual arrangements amounted to contract food service taxable at 18% GST. The authority ruled that menu planning, quality checks, delivery, and service obligations went beyond mere sale of food.
The Authority observed that the core element of the transaction was the grant of a non-exclusive right to access Coursera’s proprietary digital platform. It ruled that the supply involved licensing of intellectual property rather than educational services.
The Gujarat AAR ruled that pizzas, pasta, salads, shakes, and similar items prepared or blended at bakery outlets upon customer order constitute restaurant services under GST. The ruling applies even where the food is sold through takeaway counters.
The Customs Authority for Advance Rulings held that classification of roasted areca nuts under Heading 2008 had already been conclusively settled by the Madras High Court. The authority ruled that tariff restructuring under the Finance Act, 2025 did not create a fresh classification issue.
The authority held that arranging transport for employees is a welfare activity, not a business supply. Nominal recovery from employees does not attract GST.
The issue concerned GST liability on electricity supplied through a solar power plant. The AAR held that electrical energy is exempt from GST and no registration is required when only exempt goods are supplied.
The issue involved classification of a fan drive assembly used in vehicle cooling systems. The AAR held that the product operates on viscous fluid principles and qualifies as a fluid coupling under HSN 8483.
The issue was whether taxpayers could choose between concessional and standard GST rates. The AAR held that once classified as outdoor catering, the 5% rate without ITC is mandatory.
The appellate authority found that facts presented on appeal differed from the original application. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication due to inconsistency in submissions.
