Appellate Orders

The issue is not answered and it is deemed that no ruling is issued under Section 101(3) of the CGST/CG  SGST Act, 2017 because of the divergence of opinion between two members.

Work Contract service supplied by NBCC (India) Ltd. are entitled for concessional rate of 12% GST vide Serial No. 3(iv) of Notification No. 11/2017-C.t Rate, dated 28.06.2017 and matching state notification issued by the Government of Odisha.

(a) the service by way of grant of mining rights by the State Government is classifiable under heading 997337,

(b) the said service is covered by serial number 17 of notification number 11/2017 Central/StateTax (Rate), dated 28.06.2017, and

(c) the said service is taxable at the rate of 18% (9% CGST + 9% SGST) during the period 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018; Post 1 January, 2019 no dispute remains, it is taxable at the rate of 18% (9% CGST + 9% SGST).

Appellate Tribunal does not find any reason to interfere with the order of Tamil Nadu Advance Ruling Authority in the matter.

Appeal by the party is rejected. Services to be provided by the appellant are leviable to GST, as specified under Notification No. 11/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2019 (as amended) read with exemption Notifications, if applicable, as per the exact nature of services to be provided by them. 

Appeal by the party is rejected. Fortified Rice Kernels (FRK) manufactured by the appellant do not have essential character of natural Rice and also does not merit classification under Chapter 10 in terms of Chapter Note 1 (A) of the said Chapter. It is appropriately classifiable under the sub-heading of Chapter 19 i.e under Chapter sub-heading 19049000.

It was held that holding of equity control of RUDSICO by JDA and Rajasthan Housing Board cannot be treated as holding of equity control by Government; therefore, RUDSOCO is not Government Authority. Appellant is not eligible for exemption under entry No. 3 of  notification no. 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 for supply provided as Project Management Service.

It was held that  notification No, 08/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 12.01.2018 clearly used word Purchase price ,  only price paid at the time of purchase can be considered as purchase price to calculate margin.

The appellant will provide service of accommodation in hostel alongwith food to the student. Amount to be charged from students for package is less than Rs.1000/- per day. It was held that hostel accommodation alongwith food is not a composite supply but it is a mixed supply. Further, it was held that in this case per unit of accommodation is hostel seat.

It was held that AAR has rightly rejected the application seeking advance ruling as the question posted by the appellant is related to supplies undertaken by them prior to the date of filing of the application.