In re Dlecta Foods Pvt Ltd. (GST AAR Maharashtra) Whether the product ‘Non-Dairy Cream’ manufactured by the Applicant is covered under CH 1517 90 90 or under CH 2106 90 99 of the GST Tariff? Subject classification matter is pending as a dispute in proceedings initiated by the Directorate General GST Intelligence (DGGI), Pune Regional […]
India ITME Society should refund the amount to their customer members with GST and the society should either get tax refund or deduct the amount of GST paid on such transaction from their future tax obligation without any time constraints mentioned in Section 34 of CGST Act 2017.
In re Lonza India Private Limited (GST AAR Maharashtra) The Application in GST ARA Form No. 01 of M/s. Lonza India Private Limited, vide reference ARA No. 23 Dated 07.09.2020 is disposed of, as being withdrawn voluntarily and unconditionally. FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA The present application has been […]
It is evident that an applicant can seek an Advance Ruling only in relation to supply of goods or services or both undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by them. Accordingly, the question on tax liability under reverse charge mechanism is not liable for admission before the authority of advance ruling.
In re Golkonda Hotels And Resorts Limited (GST AAR Telangana) M/s. Golconda Hospitality Services and Resorts Limited, are in the business of providing accommodation and services and in the course of the business they have supplied the services of boarding and lodging facility for the officials of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for conducting 2018 General […]
In re U.R. Rao Satellite Centre (GST AAR Karnataka) Applicant raised the issue of Applicability of GST on Insurance premium paid towards launch services and Applicability of MoF Notification No. 09/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated: 28-06-2017. On hearing AAr observed that we observe that M/s. U.R. Rao Satellite Centre, who have filed the application, is not […]
The issue raised in the instant application and the audit objection raised in the audit report are one and the same i.e., applicability of GST on security deposit. Thus first proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act 2017 is squarely applicable to the instant case, as all the conditions therein are fulfilled.
In re Madhus Tyre Care (GST AAR Karnataka) In this Advance ruling assesse asked Whether the tax invoice proposed to be issued by the assesse satisfies section 31 of GST Act?, Whether the tax invoice proposed to be issued by the assesse satisfies Rule 46 of GST Rules? and Whether the total amount (inclusive of […]
In re Chikkaveeranna Sweet Stall (GST AAR Karnataka) For composition tax payers what is the applicable rate of GST for the manufacturing of sweet and namkins and selling the goods over the counter not having any facility of restaurant or hotel or not a part thereof and not giving for human consumption at the place […]
In re Dwarka Prosad Agarwala (GST AAR West Bengal) 1.1 At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the CGST Act, for short) and the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the WBGST Act, for short) have the same […]
