Appellate Orders

Appeal has been rejected. The appellant is engaged in development and leasing of the developed land to various industrial/non-industrial users and paid GST on none industrial plot. It was held that Appellant cannot claim the ITC of input services  procured for construction of immovable property (whether capitalized or not).

Appeal has been rejected. The appellant has constructed specific civil structure i.e. building, rooms and roads on his own plot to lease out the same on rent. It was held that construction is on his own a/c and also not covers in the definitions of plant & machinery, therefore, ITC of inputs and input services are not available.

Appeal has been rejected on delay filing.

Appeal by the party is rejected. It was held that one amount paid as 1st installment of lease premium before Lease agreement cannot be treated security deposit and not exempted from GST. 2 RFP issued for development of land for residential purpose and consequently leased, not exempted under entry no. 41 of Notification No. 12/2017 (CT) dated 29.03.2019. 3 Amount paid during the month of Feb 2019 after issuance of letter of acceptance dated 26.09.2018 for deposition of 1st Installment of Lease premium, lease agreement is not exempted under entry N. 41B which was inserted vide notification No. 04/2019 (CT) dated 29.03.2019 as time of supply of service is before effective dated of amended notification No. 04/2019 (CT) dated 29.03.2019.

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that there is no explicit prohibition for withdrawal in the current legal provisions, the appeal is permitted to be withdrawn and no ruling is extended.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.