Appellate Orders

The Appellate Authority upheld the order passed by Delhi Authority for Advance Ruling of M/s NBCC (India) Ltd.

The Gujarat Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling modify the advance ruling order by holding that the product ‘Fanta Fruity Orange’ manufactured and supplied by Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt ltd is classifiable under sub heading 2202 10 and GST rate of 28% and GST compensation Cess rate of 12% are applicable to the said product.

Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal filed by the appellant and uphold the Advance Ruling  no. Guj/GAAR/R/43/2021 dt. 11.08.2021

Member (Central) held that in absence of sufficient information, it cannot be determined whether M/s. NDDB is ‘Governmental Authority’. It is also held that exemption in not admissible to M/s NDDB for providing services of “Renting of Immovable property” Member (State) agreed with findings on first issue. As regarding second issue, it is held that it is not subject matter in this appeal hence the same can’t be decided in this appeal.

Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal filed by the appellant and uphold the Advance Ruling  no Guj/GAAR/R/51/2021 dt. 06.09.2021

Appellate Authority has uphold the impugned ruing UP ADRG- 12/2022 dt. 23.09.2022 passed by the Authority for Advance ruling against the Appellant.

The processing undertaken by a person on the goods belonging to another registered person qualifies as job work even if it amounts to manufacture provided all the requirements under the CGST/MGST Act in this behalf, are met with. The transaction between the Appellant and M/s JSL does not qualify for Job Work under Section 2(68) and Section 143 of the said Acts.

(1) Activities under taken by the appellant are covered under composite supply of works contract as defined clause (119) of the Section 2 of the CGST Act, 2017.

 (2) The aforesaid activities shall be covered under Entry No 3(v) (a) of Notification No. 8/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and the benefit of concessional rate of 12% GST can be availed in respect of the said supply. However, the benefit of concessional rate of GST shall be restricted for the period prior to 18.07 2022 only ie the date of change in Notification and omission of entry 3(v) (a) of Notification No. 8/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling held that the services of supplying food by the appellant to the employees of the unit located in the Special Economic Zone is not covered under the zero rated supplies in terms of Section 16(1)(b) of the IGST Act, 2017 and the services of the appellant are also not in the nature of restaurant services in SEZ as claimed by the appellant.

We, hereby, partly set aside the MAAR Order No. GST-ARA-68/2019-20/B-52 dated 27.08.202 1 by holding that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the other charges which are inextricably linked to services by way of construction of residential apartment /dwelling are part of a bundled service with principle service of construction of residential apartment /dwelling. The rate of tax applicable on such services would be 12% as applicable to the construction service. The other charges that don’t pass the muster of indicators of a bundled service are held as supply of independent services. They are to be taxed as per the respective SAC codes and rate of tax thereon. As per the submission of the appellant, he has collected 18% of GST on the supply of such services. In respect of services which are allowed as bundled services, the present decision implies an excess collection of tax. It is hereby directed that the Appellant to refund the excess tax collected to the customers. Thus, the appeal filed by the Appellant is, hereby, partly allowed.