Goods and Services Tax – GST – By: – Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal – Dated:- 15-2-2019 – Advance rulings are important in any tax law as it provides a forum for clarification and possible interpretation of statutory provisions. Moreover, it conveys the legislative intention from the revenue s view point. Provisions of advance ruling are contained in section 95 to 106 of CGST Act, 2017 and State / UT GST enactment. Rules 103 to 107 of also provide for forms, manner, certification etc. The Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) have been set up in all the states and we have now over 300 advance rulings on different issues already pronounced by various State Authorities. The appellate mechanism for filing appeals against AAR rulings is also in place and we have about twenty five such appellate orders confirming or modifying the AAR orders. One major issue presently being faced is about multiple authorities (equal to number of States), each pronouncing a ruling of its own even if the matter is covered
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
eking ruling on the rate of GST applicable to the such products. It was ruled that commodities such as marine propellers, rudder set, stern tube set, propeller shaft and M.S. Shaft for couplings used as a part of fishing/floating vessels would come under Entry No. 252 of Schedule I of Notification No. 1/2017 Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 and State Notification No. 360/2017, dated 30-6-2017 and hence taxable at the rate of 5 per cent [SGST – 2.5 per cent; CGST-2.5 per cent]. If the said commodities are used for some other purpose, then the applicable tax rate would be 18 per cent. [In Re: Saraswathi Metal Industries 2018 (11) TMI 282 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, KERALA ]. Advance Ruling on classification of goods and rate of tax (implants) The applicant was engaged in the distribution and trading of implants for joint replacement . The applicant preferred an application for Advance Ruling on the rate of tax in respect of the above product. The applicant was of the view that as
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ry at Serial No. 221 of Schedule II of Notification No. 01/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated Sl. No. Chapter/Heading/Sub-Heading/Tariff item Description of goods (1)(2)(3) 578 90 or any other Chapter Assistive devices, rehabilitation aids and other goods for disabled, specified in List 30 28-6-2017, it is evident that joint replacements are specifically covered under the entry at Serial No. E(9) of List 3 of Entry 257 of Schedule I whereas the entry at Sl. No. 221 of Schedule II is a general entry that covers artificial parts of body. Therefore, applying the principle under rule 3 of the General Rules of Interpretation of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975; that the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description it is held that the joint replacements falling under HSN Code 90213100 are covered under Serial No. E(9) of List 3 of Entry 257 of Schedule I of Notification No. 01/2017 – Central Tax (Rate)
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals (P.) Ltd. 2018 (6) TMI 465 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING HYDERABAD TELANGANA ]. Advance Ruling on classification of goods The assessee/applicant was engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of digital printed materials. It made an application before the Authority for Advance Ruling seeking ruling on the following issues: Whether the printed advertisement materials classifiable as 'supply of goods.' If yes, whether it was classifiable under Heading No. 4911 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. It was ruled that where assessee was engaged in business of manufacturing and sale of digital printed advertisement materials, said material would be classifiable as supply of goods and it would fall under Heading No. 4911 of GST Tariff and liable to GST at rate of 12 per cent. [In Re: Macro Media Digital Imaging (P.) Ltd. 2018 (6) TMI 519 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING HYDERABAD TELANGANA ] Advance ruling on HSN Code and Classification
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ures'. The AAR observed that the products are not vegetable fats and vegetable oils per se. the products do not remain mere vegetable fat or mere vegetable oil. The impugned products are a distinct product which is known in the market as a dielectric transformer fluid. The applicant has argued that the products cannot be considered as 'mixtures' but no information about the manufacturing process has been given. Neither any information has been shared as to the ingredients contained in the products. The products also contain additives, the information about which has also not been shared with the Authority. But the manufacturing process of these ingredients and the addition of additives leads to a distinct product being formed. The ingredients or additives are added so as to formulate a certain product which could be used as a transformer fluid. So the processes are intended to manufacture a new commodity in which rapeseed oil or soya would be the prime ingredient. Owing to
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =