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 authority held that the product is designed solely for smartphones and cannot function independently. The key takeaway is that exclusive use determines classification as a part under tariff heading 8517.
The authority held that AMOLED display assemblies remain flat panel display modules despite having driver ICs. Since they retain their core display function and lack independent communication capability, classification under CTH 85249220 was upheld.
The case involved classification of LFD monitors under customs law. The Authority allowed withdrawal as the request was made before any ruling. The takeaway is that applications can be withdrawn prior to adjudication.
The Authority refused to entertain the application as the classification of roasted arecanuts was already settled by a High Court judgment. It held that advance rulings cannot be issued on matters already decided.
The case involved classification of a product under customs law. The Authority allowed withdrawal as the request was made before any ruling. The takeaway is that applications can be withdrawn before adjudication.
The authority held that operational services were provided to a PSU under contract. As a result, exemption for healthcare services was denied and GST was held applicable.
The Authority held that procedural questions on E-way bill generation are not covered under Section 97(2) of the CGST Act. The application was rejected as not maintainable.
The issue was whether a digital transport platform qualifies as a GTA. The Authority held that absence of consignment note and transport activity excludes GTA classification. It ruled that such platforms are e-commerce operators liable for GST on commission and TCS compliance.
The case examined taxability of bio-mining and waste remediation services. The Authority held that such services qualify as pure services and are exempt under Notification 12/2017.
The ruling holds that GST input tax credit is available on employee transport services when mandated by law. Statutory obligation under labour law overrides the blocked credit restriction.
