Appellate Authority does not find any reason to interfere with the Original Ruling. Appeal dismissed.

The appellanthas relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Gupta Vs Prakash Chandra Mishra and others-2011(1) TMI 175-SC, wherein theHon'ble Supreme Court held that "Every procedure is to be understood as permissible in law till it is shown to be prohibited in law and as a matter of general principle, prohibition cannot be presumed". Abiding the law set by the Apex court, considering that there is no explicit prohibition for withdrawal in the current legal provisions, the appeal is permitted to be withdrawn and no ruling is extended.

1. For reasons as discussed, Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling  do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Advance Ruling Authority relating to question No.1. The subject appeal is disposed of accordingly.

2. On Question No.2 & 3, Le, on the eligibility of ITC paid on the works contract service for Pile foundation to the project site also claimed as foundation for the storage tanks and water tanks, as there is difference of opinion between the Members, no ruling is offered as per Section 101(3) of the CGST/TNGST Act 2017.

Uttarakhand Appellate Authority on Advance Ruling upheld the order passed by Authority for Advance Ruling.

Uttarakhand Appellate Authority on Advance Ruling upheld the order passed by Authority for Advance Ruling.

We uphold the order No. KAR ADRG 54/2021 dated 29/10/2021 passed by the advance ruling authority and the appeal filed by the Appellant M/s. Time Technoplast Ltd, stands dismissed on all accounts.

We uphold the order No. KAR ADRG 52/2021 dated 29/10/2021 passed by the Advance Ruling Authority and the appeal filed by the Appellant M/s. Workplace Options India Pvt Ltd, stands dismissed on all accounts.

In view of the above discussions and findings and the CBIC’s Circular No. 163/19/2021-GST dated 6th October 2021, issued under F.No. 190354/ 206/2021-TRU, we hold that concessional GST rate of 12% is applicable on all goods falling under heading 3822, vide Entry at S.No. 80 of Schedule II of notification No.1/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.6.2017, including to Laboratory Reagents being imported and supplied by the Appellant.

In view of the discussions and findings, we find that the transactions executed in the course of contractual obligation of an agreement of employment are beyond the scope of GST as clarified in the Press Release dated 10.07.2017, of CBIC.
We hold that provisioning of transport facility provided by the Appellant is exclusive of the contractual obligation of the employer in the course of employment. The same shall be liable to GST, on a value that exceeds the total gift value up to Rs. 50000/- given by the Appellant to an employee availing this facility in a financial year.

In view of the above discussions and findings, we dismiss the appeal and uphold the Advance Ruling dated 03.12.2018 as the same does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The AAR has correctly held that the nature of the Applicant’s services is of input services.