Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : In re Vinay Raveendra Babaleshwar (GST AAR Karnataka)
Appeal Number : Advance Ruling No. KAR ADRG 26/2024
Date of Judgement/Order : 25/06/2024
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

In re Vinay Raveendra Babaleshwar (GST AAR Karnataka)

In the case of Vinay Raveendra Babaleshwar (GST AAR Karnataka), the applicant, a proprietorship firm under the name M/s. Shreyas Enterprises, sought an advance ruling under Section 97 of the CGST Act, 2017 and KGST Act, 2017. The firm provides works contract services to various Government offices and was advised to charge GST at 18% effective from January 1, 2022. However, the Government offices insisted on a GST rate of 12%.

The applicant sought clarification on the correct rate of GST applicable to their services. The applicant did not submit the hard copies of the application and later informed through an email dated April 30, 2024, that they wished to withdraw the application. Consequently, the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) Karnataka allowed the withdrawal and disposed of the application as withdrawn.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, KARNATAKA

Sri. Vinay Raveendra Babaleshwar, Prop. M/s. SHREYAS ENTERPRISES, Basava Nilaya, Ward No. 11, Near Rural Police Station, Lakshmi Nagar, 237/ 1A2, Bagalkot-5871011 having GSTIN 29CMYPB2643A1Z2 have filed an application, online, for Advance Ruling under Section 97 of CGST Act, 2017 and KGAST Act 2017 read with Rule 104 of CGST Rules 2017 KGST Rules 2017.

2. The Applicant is a Proprietorship firm, rendering works contract services to different Government offices; they have been advised to charge GST @ 18% effective from 01.01.2022, whereas the recipients i.e. Government offices insisted to charge GST@ 12% only.

3. In view of the above, the applicant has sought advance ruling on the correct rate of GST applicable on the works contract services provided to the Government offices.

4. The applicant had not submitted the hard copies of the instant application and on enquiry they informed through e-mail dated 30.04.2024 that they intend to withdraw the application and requested to permit them to withdraw the instant application.

5. In view of the above, we pass the following,

RULING

The application filed by the applicant for advance ruling is disposed off as withdrawn.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Ads Free tax News and Updates
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
February 2025
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728