Bio-Phosphate merits classification under HSN code 3103 90 00 and exigible to GST @ 5%, as per Sl. No. 182B of Schedule I to Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017
In re PES Engineers Pvt Ltd (GST AAR Telangana) In a recent ruling by AAR Telangana in the case of M/s. PES Engineers Pvt. Ltd. [TSAAR Order No. 09/2023 dated April 13, 2023], held that when parties enter into separate agreements for goods and works contract services, they are treated as distinct supplies and not […]
AR Chhattisgarh Ruling regarding transfer of unutilized balance in the E-credit ledger on merger of distinct persons under Section 25(4) of CGST Act, 2017 addresses admissibility of transfer and provides analysis and conclusion.
GST on Government subsidy – Applicant is not a supplier of goods but is a recipient of goods. Thus instant application is not admissible.
Ruling by AAR in Telangana regarding GST exemption for printing services, such as question papers, OMR sheets, answer sheets, and marks cards, provided to educational institutions. Understand the classification, applicability of exemptions under specific notifications, and the composite supply nature of services.
Services provided by TS Transco to South Central Railway are classifiable as ‘Works Contract Service’ falling under Chapter 99, Group 99542 and are taxable @ 18%
In re Kalepsh Dineshbhai Patel (GST AAR Gujarat) The aforementioned application having been filed by M/s. Kalpesh Dineshbhai Patel and not by M/s. Khanepe Hungermall LLP who is the actual supplier and also having been filed without requisite fee, stands rejected in terms of section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with sections 95(a), (c) […]
One time premium received by applicant on allotment of completed commercial units/building is taxable supply in terms of section 7 of CGST/GGST Act, 2017.
Subsidized deduction made by applicant from employees who are availing food in factory/corporate office would not be considered as a ‘supply’ under section 7 of CGST Act, 2017
AAR find that [a] applicant before us is not supplier of service and [b] that ruling sought is not for admissibility of input tax credit in respect of supply received by applicant. In fact it is the supplier who may seek an advance ruling in the matter.
