Appellate Orders
You are here
SI. No. | Name of the Appellant | States/UT | Appeal Order No. & Date | Brief of Order in Appeal (OIA) | Download | AAR Order No. and Date, against which Appeal has been filed |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | M/s L&T Hydrocarbon Engineering Limited | Rajasthan | RAJ/AAAR/08/2023-24 Dt. 19.12.2023 |
It was held by the authority that (i) The Appellant's proposed supplies are appropriately classifiable under SAC Heading No. 9954 answering to description ‘Construction Services’ which are in the nature of composite supply defined as works contract.
(ii) SAC Heading No. 998621 is more specific to describe the proposed supplies, This view of the appellant is not supported by the EPC Contract of the appellant.
(iii) The claim for classification of proposed supply to be covered under SAC Heading No. 998621 or alternatively under Heading 9983 is not sustainable.
(iv) The proposed supplies, therefore, attract tax at the rate of 9% in terms of item (xii) of entry at Sl. No. 3 of Notification No. 11/2017-CT (R), dated 28.06.2017 as amended and 9 % in terms of Notification issued under the RGST Act, 2017.
It was held that the Ruling dated 13.09.2021 of the AAR for Rajasthan in respect of the Appellant is modified hereby modified to the extent mentioned in item (iv) above. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. |
View(Size:10.39 MB ) | RAJ/AAR/2020-21/18 dated 13.09.2021 |
2 | M/s Kalpataru Projects International Limited | Rajasthan | RAJ/AAAR/07/2023-24 Dt. 19.12.2023 |
It was held by the authority that (i) The Appellant's proposed supplies are appropriately classifiable under SAC Heading No. 9954 answering to description ‘Construction Services’ which are in the nature of composite supply defined as works contract.
(ii) SAC Heading No. 998621 is more specific to describe the proposed supplies, This view of the appellant is not supported by the EPC Contract of the appellant.
(iii) The claim for classification of proposed supply to be covered under SAC Heading No. 998621 or alternatively under Heading 9983 is not sustainable.
(iv) The proposed supplies, therefore, attract tax at the rate of 9% in terms of item (xii) of entry at Sl. No. 3 of Notification No. 11/2017-CT (R), dated 28.06.2017 as amended and 9 % in terms of Notification issued under the RGST Act, 2017.
It was held that the Ruling dated 13.09.2021 of the AAR for Rajasthan in respect of the Appellant is modified hereby modified to the extent mentioned in item (iv) above. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. |
View(Size:1.24 MB ) | RAJ/AAR/2020-21/21 dated 15.09.2021 |
3 | M/s ION Exchange (India) Limited | Rajasthan | RAJ/AAAR/06/2023-24 Dt. 19.12.2023 |
It was held by the authority that (i) The Appellant's proposed supplies are appropriately classifiable under SAC Heading No. 9954 answering to description ‘Construction Services’ which are in the nature of composite supply defined as works contract.
(ii) SAC Heading No. 998621 is more specific to describe the proposed supplies, This view of the appellant is not supported by the EPC Contract of the appellant.
(iii) The claim for classification of proposed supply to be covered under SAC Heading No. 998621 or alternatively under Heading 9983 is not sustainable.
(iv) The proposed supplies, therefore, attract tax at the rate of 9% in terms of item (xii) of entry at Sl. No. 3 of Notification No. 11/2017-CT (R), dated 28.06.2017 as amended and 9 % in terms of Notification issued under the RGST Act, 2017.
It was held that the Ruling dated 13.09.2021 of the AAR for Rajasthan in respect of the Appellant is modified hereby modified to the extent mentioned in item (iv) above. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. |
View(Size:1.13 MB ) | RAJ/AAR/2020-21/20 dated 15.09.2021 |
4 | M/s Petrofac International UAE LLC | Rajasthan | RAJ/AAAR/05/2023-24 Dt. 12.12.2023 |
It was held by the authority that (i) The Appellant's proposed supplies are appropriately classifiable under SAC Heading No. 9954 answering to description ‘Construction Services’ which are in the nature of composite supply defined as works contract.
(ii) SAC Heading No. 998621 is more specific to describe the proposed supplies, This view of the appellant is not supported by the EPC Contract of the appellant.
(iii) The claim for classification of proposed supply to be covered under SAC Heading No. 998621 or alternatively under Heading 9983 is not sustainable.
(iv) The proposed supplies, therefore, attract tax at the rate of 9% in terms of item (xii) of entry at Sl. No. 3 of Notification No. 11/2017-CT (R), dated 28.06.2017 as amended and 9 % in terms of Notification issued under the RGST Act, 2017.
It was held that the Ruling dated 13.09.2021 of the AAR for Rajasthan in respect of the Appellant is hereby modified to the extent mentioned in item (iv) above. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. |
View(Size:1.32 MB ) | RAJ/AAR/2021-22/17 dated 13.09.2021 |
5 | M/s Lakhlan and Qureshi Construction Co. | Rajasthan | RAJ/AAAR/04/2023-24 Dt. 08.12.2023 |
It was held that 1. M/s Jaipur Smart City Limited are covered under Governmental Authority as defined in the explanation to clause (16) of Section 2 of the IGST Act, 2017.
2. The supply related to 'fire fighting system with pump house in ABD Area & Purohitji ka Katla including 5 years Operating & Maintenance installation’ provided by the appellant to M/s JSCL is considered as supply of services provided to the Governmental Authority and are covered under Item number (vi) in Column (3) of serial number 3 of Notification No. 11/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended by Notification No. 24/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 21.09.2017
3. The said services are liable to attract GST @ 12% (i.e. 6% CGST & 6% SGST) during the contracted period only up to 31.12.2021 as after that in column no. (3) of Serial No. 3 of Notification No. 11/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 the words “a Governmental Authority or a Government Entity” have been omitted vide Notification No. 22/2021- Central Tax (Rate) dated 31.12.2021 w.e.f. 01.01.2022.
4. In respect of amount paid as NOC for road cutting to Jaipur Nagar Nigam, Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 7 of CGST Act, 2017 read with Notification No. 14/2017-Central Tax ( Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended by Notification No. 16/2018 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 26.07.2018 is not applicable in this case. Therefore, the appellant are liable to pay GST @18% (i.e. 9% CGST + 9% SGST) as a recipient under RCM.
5. The appellant are liable to pay GST on recovery of road cutting charges from M/s JSCL @18% (i.e. 9% CGST + 9% SGST). |
View(Size:1.50 MB ) | RAJ/AAR/2021-22/31 dated 15.12.2021 |
6 | M/s Resonance Edventures Limited | Rajasthan | RAJ/AAAR/03/2023-24 Dt. 23.11.2023 |
It was held that the Authority for Advance Ruling, Rajasthan has erred in pronouncing the impugned supply as mixed supply. Further it was held that the supply of coaching service by the appellant along with supply of goods/printed material/test papers, uniform, bags and other goods to their students is composite supply and their principal supply is coaching services. The Advance Ruling No. RAJ/AAR/2021-22/35 dated 28.12.2021 was modified to this extent. |
View(Size:2.44 MB ) | RAJ/AAR/2021-22/35 dated 28.12.2021 |
7 | Additional Commissioner, CGST & CE/ST, Commissionerate, Udaipur in the matter of M/s. Gyankeer Products Private Limited | Rajasthan | RAJ/AAAR/02/2023-24 Dt. 22.11.2023 |
The AAAR found that the appeal was filed against the letter dated 11.07.2023 wherein decision was taken by the AAR, Rajasthan under Section 104 of the CGST Act, 2017. No appeal was filed against the AAR Order dated 01.06.2022. The instant petition cannot be treated as an appeal by default; that will be time-barred too. The instant appeal is not an appeal under Section 100 against the order passed under Section 98(4) or 98(5) of the CGST Act, 2017. Thus, it is outside the purview of the domain of the Authority. It was held that the appeal filed by CGST, Udaipur before AAAR against the letter dated 11.07.2023 issued by AAR, Rajasthan is not maintainable. It is disposed of accordingly. |
View(Size:2.75 MB ) | Letter No. 01/Letter/AAR/State/2023-24 dated 11.07.2023 issued by the Authority for Advance Ruling, Rajasthan |
8 | M/s Sai Enterprises | Rajasthan | RAJ/AAAR/01/2023-24 Dt. 10.11.2023 |
The AAAR upheld the Ruling pronounced by the Authority for Advance Ruling, Rajasthan vide Order dated 01.06.2022 as the question posed by the appellant is related to supplies already undertaken by them prior to the date of filing of the application for advance ruling and accordingly appeal filed by the appellant is rejected. |
View(Size:681.61 KB ) | RAJ/AAR/2022-23/05 dated 01.06.2022. |
9 | M/s. Sri Venkateswara Cashew Chikky Manufacturers | Andhra Pradesh | AAAR/AP/01 (GST)/2023, dt: 22.12.2023 |
Q. Whether the product by name ‘Crackle’ manufactured and supplied by the Appellant containing the ingredients sugar, Cashew Nuts, Butter, Liquid Glucose and other permitted flavours, should be classified under the Tariff Heading 1704 enumerated at Serial No. 32AA of Schedule -II ( wrongly mentioned as Schedule -III) of Notification No. 01/2017-CT (Rate) as a sugar Boiled Confectionary? Ans. Affirmative |
View(Size:9.38 MB ) | AAR No.10/AP/GST/2023 dated 26.05.2023 |
10 | M/s. IDMC Limited | Gujarat | GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2023/08 dt. 07.12.2023 |
1. Whether contract involving supply of equipment /machinery & erection, installation & commissioning services without civil work thereof would be contemplated as composite supply of cattle feed plant under GST regime? If the supplies would qualify as composite supply, what would be the classification of this bundle and applicable tax rate thereon in accordance with Notification No. 01/2017 – CT(Rate) dated June 28, 2017 (as amended). 2. Whether contract involving supply of equipment /machinery & erection, installation & commissioning services with civil work thereof would be contemplated as works contract service or not. If the supplies would qualify as composite supply of works contract, what would be the classification and applicable tax rate thereon in accordance with Notification No. 11/2017 – CT(Rate) dated June, 28, 2017 (as amended).? |
View(Size:6.08 MB ) | GUJ/GAAR/R/2022/14 dated 14.03.2022 |
11 | M/s. Rajkot Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd. | Gujarat | GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2023/07 dt. 07.12.2023 |
1. Whether the incentives received under “Atma Nirbhar Gujarat Sahay Yojna” dated 16.05.2020 declared by the Gujarat Government could be considered as subsidy and not chargeable to tax? 2. Whether the incentive received under said scheme could be considered as supply of service under the provisions of section 7 under CGST Act? 3. Whether the incentive received under said scheme if considered as supply then would it be covered under section 7(2) of CGST Act? 4. Whether the incentive received under said scheme could be considered as excluded from the value of taxable supply under section 15(2)(e) of CGST Act, 2017. |
View(Size:4.73 MB ) | GUJ/GAAR/R/35/2021 dated 30.07.2021 |
12 | M/s. Ahmedabad Janmarg Limited | Gujarat | GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2023/06 dt. 07.12.2023 |
If AJL does not qualify to be local authority under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in Part A, can be it construed to be a government entity or a governmental authority? |
View(Size:5.07 MB ) | GUJ/GAAR/R/27/2021 dt. 19.07.2021 |
13 | M/S Punjab State Power Corporation Limited | Punjab | 02/AAAR/PSPCL/2023/333-35,Dated 20.03.2023 |
The appeal of the applicant was remanded to AAR, Punjab to re-examine whether the application of the appellant is covered under sub-section (2) of Section 97 of the CGST Act,2017 or otherwise and pass an order on its maintainability |
View(Size:6.46 MB ) | AAR/GST/PB/17 dated 29.09.2022 |
14 | M/s. The Varaccha Co.-Op. Bank Ltd. | Gujarat | GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2023/05 dt. 04.10.2023 |
Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal filed by the appellant and uphold the Advance Ruling no. GUJ/GAAR/R/37/2021 dt. 30.07.2021 except in respect of roof solar plant wherein in paragraph 18.1 to 18.4 it is held that ITC is admissible on roof solar plant. |
View(Size:6.98 MB ) | GUJ/GAAR/R/37/2021 dt. 30.07.2021 |
15 | M/s. Adama India Private Limited | Gujarat | GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2023/04 dt. 26.09.2023 |
Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal filed by the appellant against the Advance Ruling no. Guj/GAAR /R/44/2021 dt. 11.08.2021. |
View(Size:3.80 MB ) | GUJ/GAAR/R/44/2021 DATED 11.08.2021 |