Appellate Orders

The Maharashtra Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling  held that the services provided by the Appellant in the impugned matter qualifies for inclusion under entry 3(vii) of the Notification No. 12/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28.06.2017 (as amended by Notification No. 31/2017-C.T. (Rate) dated 13.10.2017) 

The Maharashtra Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling  held that the  questions by the Appellant are not maintainable in terms of the Clause (a) of section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017, as the transaction with respect to which the Appellant has asked the questions, are not pertaining to the Appellant.

The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, hereby, hold that the additional/Penal interest recovered by the Applicant from their customers against the delayed payment of monthly instalments of the loan extended to such customers, would be exempt from GST in terms of Sl. 27 of the Notification No. 12/2017-C.T. (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. 

The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, hereby, reject the application filed by the Appellant under section 102 of the CGST Act, 2017 seeking the amendment in the AAAR Order No. MAH/AAAR/SS-RJ/26/2018-19 dated 22.03.2019

The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, hereby, uphold the ruling pronounced by the Advance Ruling Authority, wherein it was held that the gaming zone operated by the Appellant in the mall premises would attract GST at the rate of 28%(CGST @14% + SGST@14%) in terms of the entry (iiia) of Sr.34 of the Notification No. 11/2017-C.T. (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended by the Notification No. 1/2018 –C.T. (Rate) dated 25.01.2018.

The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, hereby, hold that the entire gamut of activities performed by the Appellant in terms of the subject agreement, are those of an intermediary, which would be classified under the heading 9997 bearing the description 9997. As regards the issue of export of the services provided by the Appellant, it is held that advance ruling in this issue cannot be passed as the same is beyond our jurisdiction. 

The Maharashtra Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling while confirming the order of the Maharashtra Advance Ruling Authority held that the contract in the impugned case is though a composite supply not for immoveable property, and therefore does not fall under the definition of ‘works contract’. The principal supply in the case is of Air conditioning units and the entire contract is taxable @ 28%.

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.