States GST & VAT - Section 73—Determination of tax—Notices and order uploaded on ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ tab—Order passed without granting opportunity of hearing—Validity of Surya Resmi Traders v. STO (2025) 126 ITPJ (SG) 334 (Ker-HC) : 2025 TaxPub(GST) 1393 (Ker-HC) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : The applicant is engaged in the manufacture, supply and distribution of pharmaceutical products, utilizes the excess funds/cash lying idle by subscribing to various mutual funds schemes. It sought Advance Ruling on the question that whether the applicant is eligible to avail ITC of tax paid on common inputs & input services used in relation to the subscription and redemption of mutual funds? The Authority for Advance Ruling held that the applicant could avail ITC on common inputs and input services used in relation to the subscription and redemption of mutual funds subject to the condition mentioned in section 17(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. Aggrieved from the same, the applicant appealed before the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling. RULING : The Appellant has not justified as to how the activity of subscription and redemption of mutual funds is in the course of furtherance of business when it is his own say that they are engaged in manufacture, supply and distribution of pharmaceutical products. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant was rejected and the ruling passed by the Authority for Advance Ruling was upheld. Zydus Lifesciences Ltd., In re (2025) 126 ITPJ (SG) 332 (AAR) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : The appellant is engaged in manufacture, import, export, wholesale, retail sale and distribution of Agro Chemicals, Bio-Control, Agri-Inputs and Bio-Stimulants, including Rapigro Liquid as well as Rapigro Granules. It sought Advance Ruling on the following questions: 1. What would be the classification of Rapigro under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975? 2. What would be the classification of Rapigro under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017? 3. What would be the rate of tax payable on Rapigro? The Authority for Advance Ruling held that: 1. The classification of Rapigro under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 will be under 38089340, as a ‘plant growth regulator’. 2. The rate of tax applicable on Rapigro is 18% (9% CGST and 9% SGST) as per SI. No. 87, Schedule III, Notification No. 1/2017-CT(Rate) dated 28-6-2017. Aggrieved from the Ruling provided by the Authority for Advance Ruling it appealed before the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling. RULING : A conjoint reading of the purpose, mode of action, application, effects along with the technical literature and important characteristics of the product in question, i.e. Rapigro, leads us to a conclusion that it is a Plant Growth Regulator (PGR). The appellant failed to produce anything to warrant any interference with the findings of the ruling. Therefore, the ruling passed by the Authority for Advance Ruling was upheld and the appeal filed by applicant was rejected. Jivagro Ltd., In re (2025) 126 ITPJ (SG) 331 (AAR) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : The applicant was a private company and was duly registered under the CGST Act. It sought advance ruling on the following questions: 1. Whether the Applicant can avail the ITC of the import IGST paid through TR-6 Challan in terms of section 16(2) of the CGST Act read with rule 36 of CGST Rules? 2. Whether the eligibility to avail ITC of the import IGST paid vide TR-6 Challan is subject to the time limit prescribed under section 16(4) of the CGST Act? 3. Whether the eligibility to avail ITC of the import IGST paid vide re-assessed bill of entry is subject to the time limit prescribed under section 16(4) of the CGST Act? 4. If the answer to Q.3 for bill of entry is in affirmative, whether the time limit for availing ITC would begin from the initial date of bill of entry originally filed or from the date of re-assessment of bill of entry. The Authority for Advance Ruling gave the following answers: 1. Neither a TR-6 challan as such, nor a TR-6 challan read with the SVB order and letters issued by the tax authorities, as claimed by the applicant in the instant case can be considered as an eligible document for the purpose of availment of ITC. 2. As TR-6 challan cannot be considered as an eligible document for the purpose of availment of ITC, the question of answering this query does not arise. 3. Availment of ITC on import IGST on the basis of a re-assessed bill of entry, is very much governed by the time limit as prescribed under section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. 4. The time limit for availing ITC on the differential IGST paid would begin from the date of re-assessment of bill of entry. Aggrieved by the rulings pronounced by the Authority for Advance Ruling, the applicant appealed before the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling. RULING : By considering all the rulings passed by the Authority for Advance Ruling and examining the matter in detail upon merits and different aspects. The ruling pronounced by the AAR in Advance Ruling No. 20/ARA/2025 dated 09-5-2025 was upheld and the appeal filed by the appellant before the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling was dismissed. Becton Dickinson India (P) Ltd., In re (2025) 126 ITPJ (SG) 335 (AAR) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : The applicant was engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of garments made up fabrics as well as doing the job work of dyeing and printing of fabrics. It sought advance ruling on the following questions: 1: As to whether trading of Particulate Matter Permits vide Bill of Supply No. 1 dtd. 05-10-2024 is liable to tax under the GST Act or not? 2: If yes, then it is Goods or Services under the GST Act? (a) If it is goods, then as to whether trading activity of Particulate Matter Permits is covered by which HSN Code and rate of GST? (b) If it is services, then as to whether trading activity of Particulate Matter Permits is covered by which SAC code and rate of GST? RULING : 1: Firstly, the averment that the permits are not tradable is not correct as the applicant have themselves submitted that it is traded on the NeML portal and any person who is participating in the ETS-PM scheme can purchase the permits. Further, the averment that it cannot be freely transferred in the open market but only in the emission market is also of no significance as it is an instrument conferring benefits on the Applicant and therefore, falls under HSN 4907 and liable to GST. For the same reason, the fact that it has an expiry period is also of no significance. Therefore, the trading of PM-permits is liable to tax under GST under HSN 4907. 2 (a): Particulate Matter Permits are goods under GST and fall under HSN 4907. The applicable rate of GST is 12%. 2 (b): Not answered, in view of Answer 2(a). Randhir Dyeing & Printing Mills, In re (2025) 126 ITPJ (SG) 330 (AAR) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : The applicant is an SEZ unit and is engaged in the business of leasing of aircrafts. They enter into a dry lease agreement with its customers (‘Lessee’) for leasing of helicopters or aircrafts or airplanes. It sought advance ruling on the following questions: 1. Whether renting of aircraft without operator can be classified under HSN code 9973-Leasing or rental services without operator-Sl. No. 17(iii) of Notification No. 11/2017-CT(R) dtd. 28-6-2017, as amended? 2. If the answer to question 1 is No, whether renting of aircraft without operator can be classified under HSN code 9973-Leasing or rental services without operator-Sl. No. 17(viia) of Notification No. 11/2017-CT(R) dtd. 28-6-2017, as amended ? 3. What will be the GST rate applicable on the leasing of helicopter/aircraft services provided by the company ? RULING : 1. A dry lease agreement is one where the aircraft owner (the lessor) provides only the aircraft to another airline (the lessee), without including any crew, maintenance, or insurance. The lessee is fully responsible for all the operational aspects of the aircraft including staffing and upkeep. In other words, it is essentially the renting of a bare aircraft. Therefore, assessee’s activities of business would fall under Heading under HSN 9973 and consequently SI No. 17 (iii) or SI. No. 17 (viia) of Notification No. 11/2017-CT(R) dtd. 28-6-2017 would be applicable. 2. NA, in view of Answer No. 1. 3. The aircrafts were not used for personal use but for commercial purposes. Thus, the applicable rate on the leasing of aircraft as per Notification No. 1/2017-CT(R) dtd. 28-6-2017 would be 5% IGST, as the applicant is an SEZ unit. Agneet Sky Aviation (IFSC) (P) Ltd., In re (2025) 126 ITPJ (SG) 329 (AAR) States GST & VAT - Section 161—Rectification of errors—Rejection of rectification application without granting of opportunity of hearing to assessee—Validity of Transzone Logistics India (P.) Ltd. v. STO (2025) 126 ITPJ (SG) 327 (Del-HC) : 2025 TaxPub(GST) 1867 (Del-HC) : (2025) 110 GST 333 (Del):(2025) 99 GSTL 300 (Del) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : The applicant is engaged in providing operating and offering services by way of public transportation in the form of air-conditioned buses. It sought advance ruling on the following questions: 1. Whether the outward transportation services provided by the applicant is subject to output tax and if so, what is the rate applicable to such outward transportation services based on the enclosed Agreement with the Govt of NCT dated 28-9-2019 where the service is all-inclusive including fuel and the operator’ of the busses? And if such services are subject to tax, is there any restriction to claim an input tax credit under section 16 of the DGST Act/CGST Act in terms read with Section 17/Section 18 of these Acts?” 2. If the answer to (i) above is yes, what will be the appropriate SAC (Services Accounting Code) for classifying the services provided by the applicant and the applicable GST rate thereon? 3. Whether the applicant is eligible to avail ITC on goods and services used by M/s Young Optimistic in supplying the service, to DOT under the Agreement? RULING : Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 provides that the Authority shall not admit an application where the question raised is already pending or decided in any proceedings in the case of an applicant under the provisions of the Act. Though, the application was admissible at the time of filing, the subsequent issuance of the show cause notice means that the very same questions are now under adjudication by the jurisdictional authority. The application cannot be sustained as the questions raised have become sub judice in parallel proceedings before the jurisdictional authority. Further, the failure of the applicant to disclose the issuance of the show cause notice amounts to suppression of material facts, which disentitles the applicant to relief before this Authority. Therefore, the application filed by the applicant was rejected for the discussed reasons. In re Young Optimistic Transport Solutions (P.) Ltd. (2025) 126 ITPJ (SG) 326 (AAR) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : The Applicant is engaged in the process of refining, bleaching and de-odorising the Crude Palm oil and Sunflower oil falling under Chapter 15. It sought Advance Ruling on the question as to what will be the determination of correct classification of Lamp Oil? RULING : The rice bran oil, without any additives or mixture of other oils, marketed by the applicant as lamp oil under the trade name ‘Mahara Jyothi’ is classifiable under Tariff Heading 1515 90 40 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. K.T.V. Health Food (P) Ltd., In re (2025) 126 ITPJ (SG) 336 (AAR) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : The appellant is engaged in the manufacturing of fertilizers and chemicals & is registered with the department. It sought advance ruling on the question that whether the expenditure incurred by the applicant, a listed entity, for the buyback of its shares in the course of furtherance of business, is eligible for ITC under GST regime? The Authority for Advance Ruling held that the applicant is not eligible to avail the ITC involved in the expenditure incurred for buyback of its share and is also required to reverse the ITC on common inputs and input service used in relation to the expenditure incurred for buyback of share. Aggrieved from the ruling provided, it filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling. RULING : The averment of the appellant that there is no requirement to reverse ITC of tax paid on common inputs & input services, in relation to buy back of shares, was not legally tenable owing to the deeming fiction which formed a part of section 17(3), ibid, via an inclusion clause. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant was rejected and the ruling passed by the Authority for Advance Ruling was upheld. In re Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. (2025) 126 ITPJ (SG) 332 (AAR)