|
2023-TIOL-90-AAR-GST
Uttarakhand Civil Aviation Development Authority
GST - Applicant does not provide any service of "transport of passengers by air" and also they do not receive the services of "transport of passengers by air” by any of the "helicopter shuttle service operator" as they do not fall under the category of "passengers" - Applicant, M/s Uttarakhand Civil Aviation Development Authority, Dehradun has approached the Authority for Advance Ruling, Goods & Services Tax, Uttarakhand, on matters or on questions which is not in relation to the supply of goods or services or both, being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by them - As the applicant does not fulfil the criterion as mandated in sub-section (a) of the Section 95 of the CGST Act, 2017, Authority holds that in terms of section 98(2) of the Central Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017, the present application is not admissible and hence rejected: AAR [para 6, 7]
- Application rejected: AAR
2023-TIOL-89-AAR-GST
Solae Company India Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - Applicant seeks to know as to whether Supro Nuggets 570 G IP proposed to be imported by the Applicant is classifiable under Tariff Item 3504 0091 or if otherwise the appropriate classification. Held: Attempt of the applicant to falsely project their logistics service provider's address as their office address and the same as falling under the jurisdiction of CAAR, Mumbai requires rejection of application on the grounds of jurisdiction alone as per provisions of Regulation 6 of Customs Advance Ruling Regulations, 2021 read with provisions of Section 28 H of the Customs Act, 1962 - Applicant has not submitted any withdrawal application, therefore, application of the applicant M/s Solae Company India Private Limited is hereby rejected on the ground of lack of jurisdiction with an observation that the applicant has to file the application for seeking advance ruling under section 28-H of the Customs Act 1962 before proper jurisdictional Advance Ruling Authority i.e. CAAR Delhi: AAR
- Application rejected: AAR
2023-TIOL-88-AAR-GST
Kaveri Exports
GST - Applicant is of the opinion that as the e-scrips are in the nature of an incentive, the same should be excluded from the total turnover for the purpose of rule 89(4) and 89(4B) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Therefore, that the reversals of input tax credit to be effected under Rule 42 to the extent of exempt supplies, need not be made - Application made seeking a ruling on this aspect. Held : After the insertion of clause (d) in the Explanation-1 to Rule 43 of the CGST Rules vide Notification No. 14/2022 dt: 05.07.2022, the value of 'Duty credit scrips' shall be excluded from the value of exempt supply for the purpose of applying Rule 42 of the CGST Rules - The turnover pertaining to sale of 'Duty credit scrips' should be reduced from the total turnover in the state as defined under clause (112) of section 2 for computation of the Adjusted Total Turnover as per Rule 89(4) of CGST Rules, 2017 - The relevancy of the turnover pertaining to the sale of 'Duty credit scrips' does not arise in the computation of the refund of input tax credit: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2023-TIOL-87-AAR-GST
India Japan Lighting Pvt Ltd
Cus - "LED socket assembly" merits classification under 8512 9000 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Subject goods would be eligible for benefit of duty exemption as per serial number 656 of notification No. 69/2011-Cus., dated 29.7.2011 in terms of India-Japan Free Trade Agreement upon production of valid Country of Origin (COO) Certificate: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2023-TIOL-86-AAR-GST
Brightpoint India Pvt Ltd
GST - 'Interactive Display System (View Board)' merit classification under Heading 8471 and more specifically under sub-heading 8471 4190 of the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975: AAR
- Application disposed of: AAR
2023-TIOL-18-AAAR-GST
Mek Peripherals India Pvt Ltd
GST - Distributors import product from ‘‘Intel inside US LLC” (IIUL) and sell to Appellant - The Appellant further sells the same product to various retailers - Appellant receives incentives on completion of targets set under said agreement in Intel Authorized Components Supplier Program (IACSP) - Appellant had sought a ruling as to whether the Incentive received from “Intel inside US LLC” under Intel Approved Component Supplier Program (IACSP) can be considered as “Trade Discount”; whether it is consideration for any supply and whether it will qualify as export of service - AAR had held that supply of goods in respect of which the incentives are purported to be given are rendered by the distributors and not by IIUL, therefore, the incentive received under Intel approved Component Supplier Program (IACSP) cannot be considered as "Trade discount"; that as per section 13(3)(a) of CGST Act, 2017, the place of provision of services is the location of the supplier of services i.e. the Appellant, which is in India and hence, the impugned supply does not qualify as export of service - Aggrieved, the present appeal is filed. Held : Incentive is being directly received from IIUL and agreement exists between the manufacturer and the supplier only and not with the distributor - Wordings of Section 15(3)(b)(i) very clearly states that discount should be established in terms of the agreement entered into or at or before the time of such supply between the buyer and the supplier - Here, the only agreement that is available on record is the agreement between IIUL and the appellant - Incentive amount is not flowing from the distributor, rather than from the actual manufacturer, and there is no agreement as such with the distributor, thus, the incentives received from IIUL is not a trade discount - It is evident from the contract / agreement between appellant and IIUL that the amount received under scheme is to enhance supply, to emboss Intel brand in India and to keep customer base intact in INDIA and thus implied services are performed by appellant as per the outcome based contract - Pay-out, thus being accrued to the appellant is not in the form of trade discount as claimed by them but in the form of supply of marketing as well as technical support services - In the present case, the marketing services are provided in respect of goods which are made physically available by the recipient of services (i.e. IIUL through its distributors) to the supplier of marketing services (i.e. the appellant), in order to provide the services, therefore, as per Section 13(3)(a), the place of provision of service is the location of the supplier of services i.e. the applicant, which is in India, hence, the impugned supply does not qualify as export of services - AAR ruling upheld and appeal is dismissed: AAAR [para 9.2, 10.1, 10.3, 11.2, 13]
- Appeal dismissed: AAAR |
|
