Ruling passed by Authority for Advance Rulings Customs , Central Excise & Service Tax. The Authority for Advance Rulings consists of a Chairman who is a retired Judge of the Supreme court and two members of the rank of Additional Secretary to the Government of India, one each from the Indian Revenue Service and the Indian Legal Service.
Goods and Services Tax : Scenario-wise analysis of GST on business canteen services covering ITC, employee recovery, contractor supply, and statutory oblig...
Goods and Services Tax : The ruling examines the composition of lime products and holds that impurities of 10–15% place them under Heading 2522. The Auth...
Goods and Services Tax : Gujarat AAAR rules ITC from one business can offset GST on unrelated output supplies under a single registration, emphasizing fung...
Goods and Services Tax : जीएसटी के तहत एडवांस रूलिंग (AAR) की प्रक्रिया, प्रा...
CA, CS, CMA : Stay informed on India's latest regulatory changes from June 16-22, 2025. This summary covers Income Tax exemptions, GST amendment...
Goods and Services Tax : New functionality to search for GST Advance Ruling Orders issued by Authority / Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling on GST Por...
Goods and Services Tax : Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) constituted under the provisions of a SGST/ UTGST Act, in terms of the provisions of Section 96...
Goods and Services Tax : Odisha AAR held that questions relating to refund of accumulated ITC under Section 54(3) are not maintainable under the advance ru...
Custom Duty : CAAR classified complete prosthetic joints as artificial joints and held the imported implants ineligible for exemption under Noti...
Custom Duty : CAAR held ITC (HS) code matching is not mandatory for DFIA imports if goods match DFIA description and satisfy Notification 25/202...
Custom Duty : CAAR ruled that matching ITC (HS) codes is unnecessary if imported goods match the DFIA description and comply with quantity and v...
Custom Duty : CAAR held that exported resultant goods qualify for proportionate duty remission under the MOOWR framework despite domestic sale o...
Goods and Services Tax : Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Authority makes changes in its lineup, appointing Shri. Ajaykumar Vaman Bonde as a member of Ad...
Goods and Services Tax : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan has been appointed as member of Maharashtra Advance Ruling Authority in the place of Mr. Rajiv Magoo. FINANCE DEP...
Goods and Services Tax : Governor of Himachal Pradesh, in supersession of this department’s notification of even No. dated 14.09.2020, published in the e...
Goods and Services Tax : Governor of Delhi under Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is pleased to reconstitute the Delhi Authority for Advance Ruling...
Goods and Services Tax : Shri. Rajiv Magoo, Joint Commissioner of Central Tax has been appointed as member of Maharashtra GST Advance Ruling Committee in t...
The applicant withdrew its advance ruling request citing the need for further testing of its bio-diesel product. The Authority disposed of the application without addressing GST classification or rates. The case highlights that no ruling is issued when applications are withdrawn.
The issue involved classification of panels used in interior decoration. The ruling emphasized functional role and structural characteristics as key determinants.
The authority permitted withdrawal as no ruling had been issued at the time of request. The decision confirms that applicants can withdraw applications prior to pronouncement under Regulation 20.
The case examined GST applicability on digital marketing training services. The ruling held that NSDC-approved training partners are eligible for exemption under Entry 69.
The ruling examines whether construction services for machinery foundations qualify for ITC. It holds that such foundations are integral to plant and machinery and not barred under Section 17(5). The decision clarifies eligibility where structures directly support manufacturing equipment.
The issue was whether ITC on construction services for machinery support is restricted. The ruling held that such foundation forms part of plant and machinery, making ITC admissible.
The application was dismissed because the tax liability had already been determined and challenged before the High Court. The Authority ruled that parallel proceedings are not permissible.
The Authority held that contribution of leasehold land and constructed property to an LLP is not a sale of immovable property. It constitutes a supply of service as consideration exists in the form of profit-sharing rights.
The Authority held that processing activities like crushing and sizing do not create a new product with distinct characteristics. Since the mineral remains unchanged, the activity does not qualify as manufacture.
The Authority dismissed the Departments appeal, confirming that geomembranes are textile products. The ruling relied on established judicial precedent and the product’s manufacturing process involving weaving.
