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.
The case examined whether a tube-fed nutritional liquid qualifies as a beverage. Authorities held that its clinical use and lack of consumption as a drink exclude it from beverage classification.
The ruling held that supplementary coaching services are not exempt since the provider is not an “educational institution.” Such services are taxable at 18% as commercial coaching.
The authority held that electricity is not fuel denying concessional GST rates for electric bus rentals. The key takeaway is that such services fall under the residual entry and attract 18% GST
The Authority declined to hear the case as the applicants address fell outside its jurisdiction. It held that jurisdiction must be determined strictly based on the address provided.
The authority held that mixtures of natural and synthetic rubber fall under 40028090 as they exclude substances under Chapter Note 5(A). Exemption applies subject to compliance with origin rules.
The Authority ruled that a refined plant extract used for treating respiratory conditions qualifies as a medicament, not a vegetable extract. Classification was based on its therapeutic use and advanced processing, denying concessional duty.
The authority ruled that panels with engineered edges and contours exceed the scope of sheets under Chapter Note 10. This led to their exclusion from Heading 3921 and classification under Heading 3925.
The ruling held that concessional GST rate applies only if bags qualify as biodegradable under the notification. It clarified that authorities cannot determine biodegradability and classification depends on material.
