Appellate Orders

The AAAR modified the ruling rendered by the AAR as under:- 

1) The supply of the PV module which is the major component of the solar power plant is not naturally bundled with supply of the remaining components & parts of the solar power plant and the supply of Services of Errection, Installation and Commissioning of the solar Power Plant.
2)The supply of the remaining portion of the contract in question which involves the supply of balance components and parts of the solar power plant and supply of services of errection, instalation and commissioning of solar power plant is viewed as a composit supply as the supply of goods and services are naturally bundled. The tax laibility on this portion of the contract in question (other than PV Module)which is tremed as "composite supply" will be determined in terms of section 8 of the CGST Act 2017,  where in the rate applicable to the dominanat nature of the supply will prevail.

The Advance Ruling Bearing No. GST-ARA-59/2020-21/B-56 dated 27.04.2022 has been upheld by the MAAAR. Therefore, the Appeal filed by the Appellant is, hereby, dismissed.

The AAAR modified the ruling rendered by the AAR is as under: - 
(a) The activity engaged in by the Appellant by way of granting the Central Brewing Unit the right to manufacture and supply beer bearing its brand name, in return for a consideration, is a supply of service as mandated in Section 7 of the CGST Act 2017, read with Clause 5(c) of the Schedule II of the said Act. 
(b) The supply of service by the Appellant is taxable to GST in terms of Section 9 of the CGST Act. 
(c ) The service supplied by the appellant is classified under the Service Code 999799 as “other services nowhere else classified” 
(d) The amounts received by the appellant from the contract brewing units under the agreement in the nature of Brand Fee and reimbursement of expenses is termed as a consideration for the supply of service and is chargeable to GST at the applicable rate of 18%.

We modify the impugned ruling classyfing the product of the appellant under Ch-2401 of GST Tariff subject to the process adopted by the appellant as provided under Explanatory Note to Ch-2401

The appallate authority for advance ruling upheld the rulings passed under section 98(4) of the GST Act 2017 vide NO.KAR ADRG 15/2018 dated 27/07/2018 i.e. wherein the activities performed by the Employess at IMO providing the services in the course of or in realtion to employment such as accounting,admisinstrative and IT system management to their disticnt units located at other state is treated as taxable supply as per entry 2 of schedule I appended to Act,read with section 7 of the CGST Act 2017.

We confirm the impugned Ruling UP ADRG-23/2023 dated 21-04-2023  passed by the Authority for Advance Ruling against the Appellant except the provission of GST invoice as held in Para 19 of the Ruling.

We affirm the Ruling UP ADRG-22/2023 dated 21-04-2023 passed by the Authority for Advance Ruling Against the appellant.

The appallate authority for adavnce ruling upheld the rulings passed under section 98(4) of the GST Act 2017 vide NO.KAR ADRG 14/2018 dated 27/07/2018 ie the services of transportation of passengers supplied through the Appellant’s electronic platform and digital network would be liable to tax at the hands of the Appellant.

The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling held that

1.  The appellant would be eligible for input tax credit proportionate to the extent of structural support erected in relation to overhead crane alone subject to fulfilment of conditions stipulated in section 17(5)( c ) and ( d ) of the CGST Act,2017 and explanation thereunder;

      ii. However they are not eligible for input tax credit as per section 17(5) ( c ) and ( d ) of the CGST Act, 2017 relating to construction of other civil structure like side walls, roof of the integrated factory building.

No infirmity was found in the order passed by the WBAAR and the appeal failed.