Appellate Orders

The issue is not answered and is deemed to be that no ruling is issued under Section 101(3) of CGST/TNGST Act 2017 because of the difference of opinion between the members.

In view of the above discussion, we hold that the services rendered by the  Appellant to the State Urban Development Agency,Uttar Pradesh (SUDA), and For PMAY, are in relation to functions entrusted to Municipalities under Article 243W and to Panchayats under Article 243W of the Constitutionof India and such services would Qualify as pure Service (excluding works contract service or other composite supplies involving supply of any goods).

The classification of the “Switch Board Cabinet”, manufactured as per the specific design and layout provided  by the Railways and supplied to the Indian Railways  only and no- Where else, falls under Chapter Heading 8607 of the  Customs Tariff  Act, 1975.

Q-1 As regard to the question of the Applicant that When the GST has been paid on the freight in the case of indigenous supplies, Whether the supplier is required to pay again GST  on the freight under RCM, we are of the opinion that the ruling given by the Advance Ruling Authority, uttar Pradesh is just  and proper and needs no interference.
Q-2  The Question number 2 of the instant Appeal is directed against the order no.63/ 2020 dated 10.07.2020 passed by the Advance Ruling Authority. The question involved in the impugned order is  “When The GST  has been paid on the ocean freight is included in the value of the imports  goods, on the CIF value of the ocean freight is included in the value of the imported of goods, Whether any further  GST liability is there under RCM”, in this regard it has been informed that the aforesaid levy is the Subject matter of an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (c) nos. 16012/2020 and 15995/2020 and the Hon’ble Apex Court has, vide order dated 06.01.2021, issued notices in the matter.

In view of difference of opinion between  the Members of Appellate Authority for Advance ruling for Goods and service Tax, Uttar Pradesh, no ruling can be issued on the Question raised  by the Appellant, in terms Of the provisions of Sub Section 3 of Section 101  of CGST Act, 2017. thus the Advance Ruling issued  vide order No. U.P  ADRG -64/2020 Dated 17.09.2020 by the Authority for Advance Ruling Uttar Pradesh , is deemed to be not in operation.

The Ruling Passed by the Authority for Advance Ruling, Uttar Pradesh. vide order No.45 dated 13.12 .2019 is just and proper and merits no interference.

Classification of fusible interlining cloth.

Whether mobilization advance for works contract is supply on the date on which it stands credited on the supplier's account.

Classification of the work for land filling and site preparation.

What should be the classification of tea bag manufacturing service.