Appellate Orders

The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, , modified the ruling pronounced by the Advance Ruling Authority in so far the observation of the facts and legal provisions are concerned and pass the order by holding that the Appellant is not entitled to avail the  ITC of GST paid on goods and services used for construction of Tie-in pipelines, from the FSRU to the National grid as per the provision laid out in section 17(5)(c) and 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017.

The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling set aside the ruling pronounced bh the Advance Ruling Authority, holding that  for the purpose of Cess @ 22% under Sr. No. 52B of Cess Rate Notification, the ground clearance of the vehicle is to be considered in laden condition only, and accordingly, the vehicle whose ground clearance in unladen condition is more than 170mm but below 170mm in laden condition, will not get covered under Sr. No. 52B of Cess Rate Notification.

The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling  amended the para 19 of the original AAAR Order No.  MAH/AAAR/SS-RJ/32/2018-19 dated 23.04.2019 in as much as the membership fee, collected by the Respondent from its members, will not construed as consideration for levy of GST; rather it is the registration fee, collected by the Respondent from its members for organising the skill oriented workshops, will be construed as consideration against the supply made by the Respondent to its members, and accordingly will be leviable to GST, while maintaining that Lions Club of Poona Kothrud, on account of the activities i.e. organizing training programs/workshops for its members, is liable to  take registration for discharging their GST liability.  

The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling held that since, the questions raised by the Appellant is not covered under our scope and jurisdiction, therefore, no ruling can be passed in the instant matter.

The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling held that since, the questions raised by the Appellant is not covered under our scope and jurisdiction, therefore, no ruling can be passed in the instant matter.

The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling held that since, the questions raised by the Appeallant is not covered under our scope and jurisdiction, therefore, no ruling can be passed in the instant matter, and therefore, the ruling passed by the Advance Ruling Authority is hereby quashed.

The appellate authority for advance ruling uphold the ruling passed under section 98(4) of the CGST Act 2017 vide NO.KAR ADRG 64/2019 dated 20-09-2019 i.e. Contention of the appellant is dismissed on all accounts.

The appellate authority has modified  the Advance Ruling Order No KAR/ADRG 92/2019 dated 27th Sept 2019 as follows:
The package of bundled services supplied by the appellant for a single price in terms of the RSA and SOW, is a mixed supply in terms of Section 2(74) of the CGST Act, 2017 and the tax ability of the mixed supply will be determined in terms of Section 8 (b) of the said Act.
The ‘a la carte’ services provided by the appellant, relating to employee relocation is neither a composite supply nor a mixed supply in view of our discussions above. 
The observations made by the Lower Authority in the impugned order to the effect that the service provided by the appellant is covered under the definition of “intermediary’ is expunged as being beyond the mandate of the Authority in the instant case.We make it clear that the above ruling is based on and limited to the activity carried out by the appellant under the RSA and the SOW referred in this order. 

a) The appellate authority for advance ruling set aside the ruling passed under section 98(4) of the CGST Act 2017 vide NO. KAR.ADRG 32/2019 dated 12-09-2019 i.e. Contention of the appellant is allowed i.e  a)  The activities performed by the Appellant with regard to repair and servicing of Volvo vehicles for Indian customers during the warranty period is an activity amounting to a composite supply of goods and service for Volvo Sweden with the principle supply being a supply of service. The recipient of the supply of service is Volvo Sweden. 

b) The appellate authority refrain from answering the question on whether the supply of services to Volvo Sweden amounts to export of services.