|
2023-TIOL-74-AAR-GST
Ragu Packaging
GST - Wooden ice cream sticks and wooden ice cream spoons supplied to dairy industry for food stuffing and for use in consumption of ice cream merit classification under HSN code 4419.90.90 and thus are exigible to GST @ 12%, in terms of Sl.No.99B of Schedule II to the Notification No. 01/2017 -Central Tax (Rate): AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2023-TIOL-73-AAR-GST
Nagabhushana Narayana
GST - Renting of Immovable Property service - Applicant, being a non-resident Indian, holding an OCI card and residing at California, United States of America (USA), owns an immovable property at Bangalore, India and rented the same to the tenants - Applicant has sought a ruling as to whether he is liable to be registered under the Act and whether he is required to pay tax on renting of commercial building - Applicant contended that he is the owner and supplier / provider of Renting of Immovable Property Service; the location of the supplier is outside India as he resides outside India and also he doesn't have any fixed establishment in India; the service being provided by him becomes import of service as it satisfies the requirement; the responsibility to pay tax is on the service recipient under reverse charge mechanism and thus he is neither liable for registration under GST nor liable to pay the tax.
Held: It is evident that though Shri Nagabhushana Narayana, is the absolute owner of property, the act of leasing of immoveable property was taken up by Smt Prabhavathi , his mother, as a General Power of Attorney [GPA] holder of the said property - Also the incomes from the property, including the rent are received and retained by the GPA holder, therefore, the GPA holder is the supplier of service of leasing of the building for commercial purposes - Smt Prabhavathi is a resident of Bengaluru, Karnataka and a supplier of taxable service, is liable to take registration under Section 22(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Since the place of supply and location of supplier are both in Karnataka, the said supply amounts to intra-state supply in terms of section 8(2) of IGST Act, 2017 and the taxable person, i.e. Smt. Prabhavathi is liable to pay CGST and KGST of 9% each on the taxable value in terms of entry no 16(iii) (SAC heading 9972) of Notification No. 11/2017 dated 28.06.2017, as amended: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2023-TIOL-72-AAR-GST
Laxmi Fried Grams Mill
GST - Application filed seeking an advance ruling has been sought to be withdrawn by applicant.
Held: Request is considered and the application filed by M/s. Laxmi Fried Grams Mill, Siddipet is allowed to be withdrawn as being infructuous: AAR
- Application withdrawn: AAR
2023-TIOL-71-AAR-GST
Aludecor Lamination Pvt Ltd
GST - Whether Aluminium composite panel/sheet is covered under HSN 3920 or HSN 7610 or HSN 7606 - Additional Commissioner, State Tax is of the view that the new commodity which came into existence as a result of manufacturing process cannot be classified either as plastic or aluminium based on the substance/substances from which it has been made; that it is a new commodity having specified uses and, therefore, a separate marketability and since not specified in Schedule I, II, IV, V or VI of the Notification No. 01/2017 dt. 28.06.2017, it would fall in residuary entry at Serial No. 453 of Schedule III and attract tax at the rate of 9% CGST & 9% SGST each - Additional Commissioner, Central Tax holds the view that the subject product has to be classified under the tariff heading 7606 as per Rule 3(b) of the General Rules for the interpretation of the Customs Import Tariff Schedule read with Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June,2017 and the rate of GST on the impugned product is 18% - Since both the Members constituting the Bench have expressed two different views on the issue raised by the applicant, the matter is being referred to the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling for the state of Telangana in terms of Section 98(5) of the CGST/ TGST Act, 2017 for hearing and decision on the question on which advance ruling is sought: AAR
- Matter referred to AAAR: AAR
2023-TIOL-64-AAR-GST
Ajit Babubhai Jariwala
GST - Applicant has been granted work order to provide architectural consultancy service to Surat Municipal Corporation [SMC], regarding the project namely SMIMER Hospital & College Campus & further to prepare architectural and working drawings as required for the construction of the project - It is the applicant's averment that SMC, the recipient of the service, has contended that SMIMER Hospital and College is covered under the 12th Schedule of Article 243W of the Constitution of India & is thus exempt, in terms of entry no. 3 of notification No. 12/2017-Central (Rate) , it being a pure service - Contra- the applicant, however, states that according to them, their services would be covered under entry no. 21 of notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) & is liable to GST @ 18% -The applicant's next contention is that if the activity is exempt as contended by the SMC, then the same exemption should also be available to the sub-contractors of the said pure service - Seeking an advance ruling on the above questions, the present application is filed.
Held: Supply of drawings, samples, physical models etc can, by no stretch of imagination, be termed as supply of goods - AAR, therefore, holds that the service rendered by the applicant is a ‘pure service' not involving any supply of goods thus satisfying the first condition [a] of Entry no.3 of notification 12/2017-CTR -Further, SMC has awarded the work order to the applicant and the work so awarded i.e. providing consultancy services as campus architect for various works at SMIMER Hospital & College Campus for SMC clearly falls within the ambit of 12th Schedule, thus satisfying both the conditions [b] and [c] - Therefore, supply by the applicant to SMC being a pure service meets the criterion set out vide Sr. No. 3 of notification No. 12/2017- CT(Rate), dated 28.6.2017, and hence, the supply is exempt from GST - The second question for ruling viz. if the applicant provides sub contract of pure services to another contractor of the SMC, whether he as a sub-contractor can avail the exemption provided the exemption is available to the direct contractor of SMC is a hypothetical question as no such contract seems to have been awarded, therefore, Authority refuses to answer this question - Application disposed of: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR |
|
