GST Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling — March 2022

M/s Siemens Healthcare (P) Ltd. · In view of the above discussions and findings, we dismiss the appeal and uphold the Advance Ruling dated 03.12.2018 as the same does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The AAR has correctly held t

M/s Imperial Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. · In view of the above discussions and findings and the CBIC’s Circular No. 163/19/2021-GST dated 6th October 2021, issued under F.No. 190354/ 206/2021-TRU, we hold that concessional GST rate of 12% is a

M/s Musashi Auto Parts India Pvt. Ltd. · Whether company is eligible to take ITC on such business promotion expenses or not? Ruling: No. Applicant is not eligible to take ITC on such business promotion expenses

M/s Beumer India Pvt. Ltd. · In view of the discussions and findings, we find that the transactions executed in the course of contractual obligation of an agreement of employment are beyond the scope of GST as clarified in the Press Release

M/s Dhingra Trucking · In view of the above discussions and findings, we dismiss the appeal and upheld the Advance Ruling dated 28.08.2020 as the same does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.

M/s DLF Limited · The Rulings are, however, as given under: - QUESTION-1 "Whether PLS collected along with consideration for sale of properties attracts GST rate of 12% or 18% where sale/transfer of constructed property has taken place befo

M/s Tamil Nadu Skill Development Corporation · Appellate Authority does not find any reason to interfere with the Original Ruling. Appeal dismissed.

M/s NBCC (India) Ltd. · Work Contract service supplied by NBCC (India) Ltd. are entitled for concessional rate of 12% GST vide Serial No. 3(iv) of Notification No. 11/2017-C.t Rate, dated 28.06.2017 and matching state notification issued by

M/s Corbett Nature Reserve, Ramnagar, Nanital · Uttarakhand Appellate Authority on Advance Ruling upheld the order passed by Authority for Advance Ruling.

M/s RasiNutri Foods · The appellanthas relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Gupta Vs Prakash Chandra Mishra and others-2011(1) TMI 175-SC, wherein theHon'ble Supreme Court held that "Every proc

M/s SHV Energy Private Limited · 1. For reasons as discussed, Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Advance Ruling Authority relating to question No.1. The subject appeal is dispose

M/s Workplace Options India Pvt. Ltd. · We uphold the order No. KAR ADRG 52/2021 dated 29/10/2021 passed by the Advance Ruling Authority and the appeal filed by the Appellant M/s. Workplace Options India Pvt Ltd, stands dismissed on all acc

M/s Time Technoplast Ltd. · We uphold the order No. KAR ADRG 54/2021 dated 29/10/2021 passed by the advance ruling authority and the appeal filed by the Appellant M/s. Time Technoplast Ltd, stands dismissed on all accounts.