The ruling holds that interim payments made during the COVID-19 lockdown constitute consideration for manpower services. GST was deemed applicable because the workers were treated as “on duty” under the existing contract, leaving no scope for exemption.
The authority held that transferring development rights in exchange for constructed flats constitutes a taxable supply. GST at 5% applies to the landowner’s share, and valuation must follow notified rules.
The ruling held that conducting recruitment examinations constitutes a taxable supply of services. Application fees collected from candidates are therefore subject to GST.
The authority held that fee receipts were taxable as the applicant failed to establish approval of its partners and courses under NSDC or NCVET. The ruling clarifies that exemptions apply only when statutory evidence is produced.
The ruling held that self-drive rentals do not transfer possession or control and must be classified under SAC 997329. The Authority applied Entry 17(viia), linking the GST rate to that of similar goods.
The authority held that rent paid for residential dwellings taken from unregistered landlords attracts GST under RCM. It further ruled that ITC is not available since the accommodation provided to employees is a non-taxable perquisite.
The authority dismissed the matter after the applicant withdrew its questions on GST applicability to duty-free shop transactions. The ruling concludes with no decision on tax liability due to the withdrawal.
The ruling holds that importing all components of an LED monitor in unassembled form qualifies as importing the finished monitor under Rule 2(a), requiring classification under CTI 85285200. Packaging materials must be classified separately.
The authority declined to classify incomplete indoor and outdoor AC units after finding the same issue was already before the Appellate Tribunal. The key takeaway is that advance rulings cannot proceed when identical questions remain under adjudication.
The authority refused to rule on the classification of imported BEV components because an identical issue was already pending before the Bombay High Court. The key takeaway is that advance rulings cannot be issued when the same question is under judicial consideration.
