States GST & VAT - QUESTION : The applicant is engaged in the business of manufacturing of injection moulding machinery and accessories. It sought advance ruling on the following questions: 1. Whether Input Tax Credit (ITC) is eligible on fire-fighting system and public heath equipment for expansion of factory for manufacturing activity? 2. What should be the basis to arrive the timeline to avail ITC on tax invoice raised by supplier to bill “Advance Component” of the contract? RULING : 1. The taxes under GST paid on the fire-fighting system and public health equipment work carried out for expansion of factory for manufacturing activity is not eligible for availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by the applicant, as it is blocked under sections 17(5)(c) and 17(5)(d) of the CGST/TNGST Acts, 2017. 2. The question of answering the second query on the timeline to avail ITC on the ‘Advance component’ involved in the instant contract, did not arise, as the main query on availment of ITC on the said contract was itself ineligible. Shibaura Machine India (P) Ltd., In re (2025) 126 ITPJ (SG) 159 (AAR) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : The Applicant was a proprietary concern who were engaged in the trading of M-sand, P-sand, Blue Metal, Boulders, Hollow Bricks and other related products. It sought advance ruling on the following questions: 1. Whether the purchase of following goods from unregistered person were liable to reverse charge mechanism as per Section 9(3) or 9(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 (a) HSN 25061020 - M-Sand & P-Sand, (b) HSN 25171010 - Boulders, (c) HSN 25171010 - Blue Metals & Bricks, (d) HSN 68101110 - Hollow Bricks 2. Whether the goods notified under section 9(3) specifically excludes the above-mentioned goods purchased from unregistered person? 3. Whether the amended section 9(4) excludes the applicant to pay tax under reverse charge mechanism for purchase of the above-mentioned goods from unregistered person? RULING : 1. Purchase of M-Sand, P-Sand, Boulders, Blue Metals and Bricks, Hollow Bricks from unregistered person are not liable to reverse charge mechanism as per Section 9(3) or 9(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. 2. Yes, the goods notified under section 9(3) exclude the above-mentioned goods purchased from unregistered person within the State. 3. Yes, the amended section 9(4) excludes the applicant from payment of tax under reverse charge mechanism for purchase of the above-mentioned goods from unregistered person within the State, unless the applicant’s nature of business continues to be trader and not promoter. Kasinathan Rupa, In re (2025) 126 ITPJ (SG) 158 (AAR) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : The applicant was a dealer for M/s. PPG Asian Paints, and received purchase bills from them. It erroneously furnished the details of purchase bills received from M/s. PPG Asian Paints as sale bills in their GSTR-1 returns and also paid taxes under GST on it unintentionally during the period from 2017-18 to 2022-23. It sought advance ruling on the following questions: 1. Whether ITC credit will be adjusted in the books of accounts - outstanding payable amount? 2. Whether the ITC erroneously transfer will be eligible for refund? RULING : The application for advance ruling filed by the applicant was not admitted, as the questions put forth by the applicant did not fall under any of the clauses from (a) to (g) of section 97(2) of CGST/TNGST Acts, 2017. Auto Color Paints, In re (2025) 126 ITPJ (SG) 157 (AAR) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : The applicant is engaged in the business of manufacturing of injection moulding machinery and accessories. It sought advance ruling on the following questions: 1. Whether Input Tax Credit (ITC) is eligible on electrical works carried out for expansion of factory for manufacturing activity? 2. What should be the basis to arrive the timeline to avail ITC on tax invoice raised by Supplier to bill “Advance Component” of the Contract and Subsequent Adjustment of Advance in the Service Bills showing both Gross and Net amount. RULING : 1. The taxes under GST paid on the electrical installation work carried out for expansion of factory for manufacturing activity is not eligible for availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by the applicant, as it is blocked under sections 17(5)(c) and 17(5)(d) of the CGST/TNGST Acts, 2017. 2. The question of answering the second query on the timeline to avail ITC on the ‘Advance component’ involved in the instant contact, does not arise, as the main query on availment of ITC on the said contract is answered in negative. Shibaura Machine India (P) Ltd., In re (2025) 126 ITPJ (SG) 160 (AAR) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : The applicant is engaged in manufacture of passenger cars & its parts at their factory, which is located in Gujarat. It sought advance ruling on the following questions: 1. Whether GST is liable to be discharged on the amount recovered by the Applicant from its employees towards the accommodation facility provided to them? 2. Whether GST is liable to be discharged on the amount recovered by the Applicant from student trainees towards the accommodation facility provided to them? 3. Whether the Applicant is eligible to avail input tax credit of the GST charged by the third-party service provider for the accommodation facility provided to its employees? 4. Whether the Applicant is eligible to avail input tax credit of the GST charged by the third-party service provider for the accommodation facility provided to student trainees? RULING : 1. GST is not liable to be discharged on the portion of the amount recovered by the applicant from its permanent employees towards the accommodation facilities provided to them. 2. GST is liable to be discharged on the portion of the amount recovered by the applicant from student trainees towards the accommodation facilities provided to them. 3. The applicant is eligible to avail ITC in respect of the GST charged by the ASP for the accommodation facilities provided to permanent employees. Further ITC is restricted to the extent of the cost borne by the applicant for providing accommodation services to its permanent employees, but disallowing proportionate credit to the extent embedded in the cost of services recovered from such employees. 4. The applicant is eligible to avail ITC in respect of the GST charged by the ASP for the accommodation facilities provided to student trainees. Suzuki Motor Gujarat (P) Ltd., In re (2025) 126 ITPJ (SG) 155 (AAR) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : The applicant is engaged in providing service through their Freedeem application/platform (for short ‘freedeem app’). The main function of freedeem application is to help local businesses by promoting their store on its digital platform at zero investment. It sought advance ruling on the following questions: 1. Whether applicant is considered as E-Commerce operator under the GST Act or not? If yes, then applicant is required to take compulsory registration or not? 2. Whether applicant is liable to pay RCM under section 9(5) of the GST being E-Commerce Operator though applicant not providing food delivery service through its freedeem platform to the recipient of services? 3. If answer of question 1 & 2 is in yes, then as to whether applicant is required to deduct TCS under the GST Act while making payment to merchants registered under the GST Act and not registered merchants under the GST Act or not? 4. If Freedeem get exemption from RCM for Restaurant service, will the TCS be applicable to the Restaurant Service in that case? 5. For TCS Collection, State wise registration is compulsory as e-Commerce operator even if centralized management systems are followed. If the answer of the question is no then whether Freedeem should deduct 1% ITCS or 0.5% CTCS and 0.5% STCS for supply at State other than State of Gujarat as applicant is following centralized management & operation system? 6. Separate GST Number as regular Taxpayer: - In case Freedeem follows provision of section 9(5), is it mandatory to register as a separate regular taxpayer state wise for discharging section 9(5) liability by charging CGST and SGST or it can be discharged by charging IGST for other than principal place of business as all other regular supply will be reported under same GSTIN for principal place of business? RULING : 1. Applicant is an electronic commerce operator. Further, in terms of section 24(x) read with section 52, of the CGST Act, 2017, the applicant is mandatorily required to obtain registration. 2. As the applicant’s service does not fall within the ambit of the services notified in terms of section 9(5), ibid, vide Notification No. 17/2017-CT (R), as amended, they are outside the scope of section 9(5) of the CGST Act, 2017. 3. Since the answer to question at 1 and 2, supra is not yes, Authority was not inclined to answer this question. However, the moot point is discussed in the answer below. 4. The applicant is liable to collect TCS in terms of section 52 of the CGST Act, 2017. 5. As per the extant law, registration for TCS would be required in each State/UT as the obligation for collecting TCS would be there for every intra-State or inter-State supply. In order to facilitate the obtaining of registration in each State/UT, the e-commerce operator may declare the Head Office as its place of business for obtaining registration in that State/UT where it does not have physical presence. It may be noted that each State/UT has indicated one administrative jurisdiction where all e-commerce operators having business (but not having physical presence) in that State/UT shall register. The proper officer for the purpose of registration of ECOs has also been notified by each State/UT. 6. The applicant has vehemently stated that they are not providing food delivery services to the end users however, they accept payment on behalf of the merchants; that they make the payment on the second day of redemption to the merchants after deducting their commission for providing its services; that they take no responsibility for the supply of services as described on the freedeem app. Since, the applicant’s service does not fall within the ambit of the aforementioned services, notified in terms of section 9(5), ibid, they are outside the scope of the said sub-section. Dsoft Innovations LLP., In re (2025) 126 ITPJ (SG) 154 (AAR) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : The applicant is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of castor oil. It sought advance ruling on the following questions: 1. Whether the chapter heading selected for output i.e. Castor oil (non-edible) is correctly considered under chapter heading 15 at the rate of IGST@ 5%? 2. Whether the assessee is eligible for the refund of accumulated GST considering the inverted rate structure notified under Notification No. 9/2022-CT(R) dated 13-7-2022 & Sr. No. 2 of Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST dated 10-11-2022? 3. If refund of accumulated GST is not allowed, then how the assessee can utilize the accumulated GST due to inverted rate structure? RULING : 1. The output of the applicant i.e. Castor oil (non-edible) is classifiable under HISN 1518 and is leviable to IGST @ 5% in terms of serial no. 90 of schedule I of Notification No. 1/2017-(T (Rate), dated 28-6-2017, as amended. 2. In respect of the second and third question as mentioned supra, we do not intend to answer the same in view of our findings recorded supra. Vinayak Agro Industries, In re (2025) 126 ITPJ (SG) 153 (AAR) States GST & VAT - Section 161—Rectification of errors—Order adversely affecting right—Opportunity of hearing HVR Solar (P) Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/Avato Ward 67 & Anr. (2025) 126 ITPJ (SG) 152 (Del-HC) : 2025 TaxPub(GST) 1138 (Del-HC) : (2025) 98 GSTL 131 (Del) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : The Applicant is engaged in the manufacture of equipment meant for transmission of load to defence. It sought advance ruling regarding classification required with regard to HSN Code of input goods used in its Manufacturing? RULING : The application for advance ruling filed by the applicant was not admitted, as the query raised therein, fell outside the scope of ‘Advance Ruling’, as defined under section 95(a) of CGST/TNGST Acts, 2017. Sundaram Industries (P) Ltd., In re (2025) 126 ITPJ (SG) 161 (AAR) States GST & VAT - Section 74—Determination of tax—Suppression of facts—Invokation of extended period of limitation—Validity of Speedways Logistics (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. Addl. Commr. of CGST & CX (2025) 126 ITPJ (SG) 162 (Cal-HC) : 2025 TaxPub(GST) 1625 (Cal-HC)