The applicant is not engaged in the manufacture and supply of ENA presently. The representatives were asked to submit as to why the applicant is seeking advance ruling on this issue in view of the fact that advance ruling is binding only on the takpayer who has sought it. They were told that a ruling on this issue will not help the applicant in any way as he is not the supplier of the same.
In re Mayank Jain (GST AAAR Maharashtra) Once it has been decided that the entire gamut of activities of the Appellant, which are in the nature of the facilitation of the main services between the Consultant Manager and its customers, i.e. prospective investors, are those of an intermediary, we proceed to the determination of the […]
In re K M Trans Logistics Private Limited (GST AAAR Rajasthan) The appellant/applicant, vide its application dated 12.06.2019 filed before the Rajasthan Authority for Advance Ruling, had stated that the appellant is a service provider having its registered office at Jaipur, Rajasthan, and providing transport services to various manufacturers of motor vehicles for carrying their […]
In re K M Trans Logistics Private Limited (GST AAAR Rajasthan) Appellant is claiming on its official website (www.kmtrans.in) that they are serving about 90% of car makers viz. Maruti Suzuki, Toyota, Tata, Hyundai, Mahindra etc., are having Fleet Size of 1250, 35 branch offices, 32 loading stations, 80 service support. From this, it is clear […]
We are of the considered opinion that all the goods being manufactured by the applicant which are mentioned (including the goods mentioned at Sr. No. 20 and 21) in the drug license issued to the applicant by the competent authority and have the labels as per the standards prescribed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 can be classified under HS code 3004.
In re Specsmakers Opticians Private Limited (GST AAAR Tamil Nadu) The issue before us relates to determination of value to be adopted in respect of supply to distinct persons of the appellant in the course of business. appellant, has claimed before the Lower Authority that applying the Second Proviso to Rule 28 of CGST Rules […]
In re Sanghvi Movers Limited (GST AAAR Tamilnadu) The appellant is eligible to avail full input tax credit of tax paid by SML Ho on the lease/hire of cranes to them for furtherance of business, subject to other conditions of eligibility to such credit as per section 16 of CGST/TNGST Act 2017 Applying the statutory […]
In re Tool & Gage Co. (GST AAR Uttar Pradesh) The classification of the seats and berth, manufactured as per the specific design and layout provided by the Railways and supplied to the Railways only and no-where else, falls under Chapter 86.07 of the GST Tariff. FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING,UTTAR […]
In re Hitachi Power Europe Gmbh (GST AAR Uttar Pradesh) Whether the Goods and Services Tax is applicable on the accounting entry made for the purpose of Indian accounting requirements in the books of accounts of Project Officer for salary cost of Expat employees. As per Schedule III of the CGST Act, 2017, “the services […]
The Applicant’s product, namely fusible interlining cloth, is classifiable under Heading 5903 in Chapter 59 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
