The Kerala AAAR held that various packaged curries, rice products, and meat-based preparations are classifiable under HSN 21069099. The ruling emphasized that the classification must be based on the nature of the final ready-to-eat product rather than individual ingredients.
The Kerala AAAR held that fees paid to convert wetland into dry land are subject to GST under reverse charge. The Authority ruled that land conversion is distinct from land improvement and is not covered by the Panchayat-function exemption under Article 243G.
The authority found that the underlying GST dispute had already been addressed in adjudication proceedings. To maintain judicial propriety, it declined to record findings on exemption eligibility.
AAAR Goa declined to examine fresh arguments on taxability and upheld the reverse charge liability on charges collected by Goa PWD. The authority held that new issues cannot be raised for the first time at the appellate stage.
The Goa AAAR held that drinking water supplied through tankers to IIT Goa students is GST-exempt because the exclusion for purified water had already been removed from Entry 99. The ruling emphasizes that the amended notification must be applied for supplies made after 18 July 2022.
The Haryana AAAR held that Brake Hoses are primarily composed of vulcanized rubber and retain their essential character as rubber hoses. Accordingly, they were classified under HSN 4009 and made taxable at 18% GST.
The Haryana AAAR held that consulting and market support services provided to a Malaysian company were intermediary services under the IGST Act. As the place of supply was held to be in India, the services did not qualify as exports or zero-rated supplies.
The Supreme Court ruled that vicarious liability under the NI Act cannot arise solely from holding an office in a society or company. The key test is whether there is specific material showing involvement in the conduct of the entity’s affairs and the transaction in question.
The key issue was whether cash falls within the definition of property under the PBPT Act. The Tribunal ruled that cash is a tangible movable asset and may be confiscated as benami property when ownership and source remain unverified.
The case examined whether Indian assets could remain seized after foreign asset value was repatriated. The Tribunal ruled that once the objective of Section 37A is fulfilled, continued attachment loses its basis.
