The Tamil Nadu AAR ruled that the GST advance ruling application stood withdrawn after the applicant informed the authority about its decision to withdraw the filing due to business transformation plans.
The Tamil Nadu AAR held that commission paid to a foreign national director for sourcing export orders attracts GST under reverse charge as it qualifies as import of services. The ruling relied on place of supply provisions under the IGST Act.
The Kerala AAR held that advance ruling applications cannot be based on hypothetical scenarios or academic questions. The Authority rejected the application because it did not relate to any actual or proposed supply undertaken by the applicant.
The Kerala AAR held that medicines, consumables, room rent, and ancillary services provided during inpatient treatment form part of a composite healthcare supply. Such inpatient healthcare services qualify for GST exemption under Notification No. 12/2017.
Kerala AAR held that used gunny bags sold after cattle feed manufacturing are reusable packing bags under HSN 6305 and not scrap. The ruling clarified that GST would apply at 5% if the sale value does not exceed Rs. 2500 per piece.
The Kerala AAR rejected an advance ruling application after noting that the issue of GST applicability on member transactions had already been adjudicated in earlier proceedings. The Authority held the application was barred under Section 98(2) of the CGST Act.
The Authority ruled that the President and Members of the statutory temple board are not “directors” under GST notifications. Accordingly, reverse charge GST was held inapplicable on honorarium and sitting fees.
The AAAR observed that customers were only informed about an unspecified Transporter facilitated through the e-commerce platform. It held that absence of certainty regarding the contracting party weakened the claim of an independent GTA service.
The Gujarat AAR refused to answer questions regarding documentary proof and invoice endorsement for SEZ zero-rated supplies. The Authority held that such issues do not fall within the categories permitted under Section 97 of the CGST Act.
The Gujarat AAR held that AAC bricks cannot be classified under Chapter 69 as ceramic products because the autoclaving process does not satisfy the firing requirement prescribed for ceramic goods. The ruling classified AAC bricks under Heading 6810 as articles of cement or concrete.
