Follow Us:

Judiciary

Sham Caterers allowed to withdraw GST AAR Application

June 15, 2018 675 Views 0 comment Print

Whether the food and beverages served at the time of parties within the premises of the club is liable to tax at CGST 2.5% + SGST 2.5%. If not what is the rate of tax ?

No advance ruling as applicant was not supplier or manufacturer of goods

June 15, 2018 621 Views 0 comment Print

In re Ramway Foods Ltd. (GST AAR Uttar Pradesh) Whether the classification  of  Sacks & bags of a kind used for the packing of goods of manmade textiles materials will appropriately  classifiable falling under HSN 63053300 or under 39232990 of GST Tariff? The ruling is not applicable as applicant is a recipient of goods and […]

Cenvat credit allowable on Transportation of Samples by Courier

June 14, 2018 840 Views 0 comment Print

M/s Poddar Pigments Ltd. Vs CCE, Jaipur (CESTAT Delhi) Courier services stand utilised by the appellant for sending the samples to their prospective buyers and for procuring orders from them. Ld. Advocate also explains that they are not charging their buyers for the said samples, though duty is being paid by them on the deemed […]

Sales of Goods by religious charitable trust attracts GST

June 14, 2018 5205 Views 0 comment Print

In re Shrimad Rajchandra Adhyatmik Satsang Sadhana Kendra (GST AAR Maharashtra) Question 1:- Whether the applicant which is a charitable trust with the main object of advancement of religion, spirituality or yoga can be said to be in business so as to attract the provisions of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Maharashtra […]

Determination of place of supply is outside the purview of GST AAR

June 14, 2018 1956 Views 0 comment Print

Section 97(2)(c) of CGST Act, 2017 stipulates that ruling as regards time and value of supply of goods or services or both, can only be raised before AAR for advance ruling. It is precisely for this very reason also, that determination of place of supply has been kept out of the purview of Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) stipulated under the provisions of section 97(2) of the CGGST Act, 2017.

Section 2(22)(e) not applicable to receipt towards repayment of loan 

June 13, 2018 879 Views 0 comment Print

ACIT Vs V. V. N. Varadhan Kumar (ITAT Chennai) Ld.CIT(A) had made a clear cut finding after examining the books of accounts of the assessee that the amount received by the assessee was only repayment of loan extended by the assessee to the company. It appears that the assessee in his books of account instead […]

PepsiCo (India) allowed to withdraw GST AAR application

June 13, 2018 778 Views 0 comment Print

Whether the product Sting – Caffeinated Beverage (Energy Drink) containing 72 mg per ml) of caffeine is classifiable  under Tariff Item 2202 91 00 (SL No. 24A of Schedule – III) as Other Non-Alcoholic Beverage or under Sub-heading 2202 10 (SL. No. 12 of Schedule-IV) as All goods [including aerated waters], containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or flavoured of the rate schedule of Notification No. 01/2017 – integrated Tax (Rate) dated 20.06.2017 read with the Corrigendum dated 27.07.2017.”

GST payable on supply & installation of car parking system as works contract

June 13, 2018 9324 Views 1 comment Print

Precision Automation and Robotics India Limited (GST AAR Maharashtra) Issue- Whether the activity of supply and installation of ‘car parking system’ would qualify as immovable property and thereby ‘works contract’ as defined in Section 2(119) of the CGST Act. Held- Since  transaction of supply and installation of a ‘car parking system’ would qualify as immovable […]

Mere Removal of MRP Stickers not amounts to Manufacture to impose excise duty

June 13, 2018 2532 Views 0 comment Print

CCE & GST Vs M/s Amar Lal Bhawani (CESTAT Delhi) Admittedly, the provisions of Section 2(f)(iii) provides deemed manufacture definition only when the goods are labelled or relabelled or MRP is altered, which itself establishes the fact of a fixation of MRP on the goods. In the absence of any allegation of fixation or alteration […]

Addition U/s. 41(1) cannot be made for Amount not paid due to long pending dispute

June 12, 2018 2982 Views 0 comment Print

Where due to pending disputes with debtors, sales commission could not be paid to agents for longer period, taxation of such liability payable to agents under section 41(1) was not justified.

Search Post by Date
July 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031