Appellate Orders

The AAAR modified the ruling rendered by the AAR to the extent of classification of goods dealt in by the applicant and the appeal succeeded.

The Maharashtra Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, hereby, uphold the MAAR Order No. GST-ARA-27/2020-21/B-38 dated 31.03.2022 ( Impugned Order) wherein it has been held that the services provided by the Appellant are neither covered under SI. No. 24(ii) nor under Sl. No. 21(ia) of the Rate Notification. As regards the classification of the impugned services, it is held that the impugned services of project management consultancy services provided the Appellant would merit classification under the SAC 998349 bearing description "Other technical and scientific services nowhere else classified, attracting GST at the rate of 18% (CGST @9% +SGST @9%).

The AAAR uphold the decision of the Authority on Advance Ruling for the State of Uttarakhand.

The Appellate Authority upheld the order passed by Delhi Authority for Advance Ruling of M/s NBCC (India) Ltd.

The Gujarat Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling modify the advance ruling order by holding that the product ‘Fanta Fruity Orange’ manufactured and supplied by Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt ltd is classifiable under sub heading 2202 10 and GST rate of 28% and GST compensation Cess rate of 12% are applicable to the said product.

Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal filed by the appellant and uphold the Advance Ruling  no. Guj/GAAR/R/43/2021 dt. 11.08.2021

Member (Central) held that in absence of sufficient information, it cannot be determined whether M/s. NDDB is ‘Governmental Authority’. It is also held that exemption in not admissible to M/s NDDB for providing services of “Renting of Immovable property” Member (State) agreed with findings on first issue. As regarding second issue, it is held that it is not subject matter in this appeal hence the same can’t be decided in this appeal.

Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal filed by the appellant and uphold the Advance Ruling  no Guj/GAAR/R/51/2021 dt. 06.09.2021

Appellate Authority has uphold the impugned ruing UP ADRG- 12/2022 dt. 23.09.2022 passed by the Authority for Advance ruling against the Appellant.

The processing undertaken by a person on the goods belonging to another registered person qualifies as job work even if it amounts to manufacture provided all the requirements under the CGST/MGST Act in this behalf, are met with. The transaction between the Appellant and M/s JSL does not qualify for Job Work under Section 2(68) and Section 143 of the said Acts.