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 ruled that the product did not qualify as a separate chemically defined compound due to variable composition and fluctuating molecular characteristics, making Chapter 29 inapplicable.
The Authority ruled that the addition of calcium phosphate and the product’s intended use in food and beverage enrichment made it a protein-based preparation under Heading 2106 rather than an isolated soy protein under Heading 3504.
The applicant sought clarification on the applicability of Notification No. 16/2021-Central Tax (Rate) and the related GST rate. The Maharashtra AAR allowed withdrawal of the application without examining the merits.
The Maharashtra AAR allowed withdrawal of an advance ruling application seeking clarity on whether GST should be charged at 12% or 18%. Since the application was voluntarily withdrawn, no decision was given on the applicable GST rate.
The application raised questions on GST rates, invoicing of washed coal transactions, and Compensation Cess on coal rejects. The Authority disposed of the matter after allowing voluntary and unconditional withdrawal of the application.
The Authority held that electricity transferred to the DISCOM grid constituted a supply under GST. Since electricity attracted a nil rate of tax, ITC on solar plant-related expenses was denied.
CAAR Mumbai held that CKD kits comprising discrete electronic components could not be classified as motherboards under CTH 8473 30 20 because they lacked the essential character of finished motherboards at the time of importation.
The Authority held that retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) does not permit reclaim of ITC already reversed under earlier rulings. It clarified that the amendment only overrides Section 16(4) and does not dilute other eligibility conditions under Section 16.
CAAR declined to entertain an advance ruling application on roasted areca nut classification after finding that the issue had already been decided by the Madras High Court. The Authority held that judicial precedent barred re-examination of the same question.
Karnataka AAR disposed of the application after the applicant informed that GST demand orders on the same issue were already under appellate consideration. No ruling was given on the merits.
