States GST & VAT - Article 226—Writ petition—Maintainability of—Availability of alternative remedies Abhinaya Constructions v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025) 123 ITPJ (SG) 333 (Mad-HC) : 2024 TaxPub(GST) 1848 (Mad-HC) States GST & VAT - Section 2(9)—Proper Officer—GST Commissioner—Whether can be designated as Proper Officer for assessment Abhinaya Constructions v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025) 123 ITPJ (SG) 332 (Mad-HC) : 2024 TaxPub(GST) 1848 (Mad-HC) States GST & VAT - Ruled 23—Revocation of cancellation—Assessee ready and willing to pay tax, interest, late fee and any other sum required to be paid—Validity of Shukru Turuk v. CCT & GST (2025) 123 ITPJ (SG) 330 (Ori-HC) : 2025 TaxPub(GST) 357 (Ori-HC) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : Applicant-company was engaged in the business of running hotels. It entered into Leave and License Agreement and granted licence to the Lessee to use the specified area of the hotel for operating a restaurant. In addition to the license fees, the appellant was also collecting electricity and water charges as per the actual meter readings and also charging GST @ 18% on licence fee. However, the lessee was not ready to pay GST charged by the appellant on electricity and water charges ostensibly on the ground that electricity and water charges were reimbursement of expenses. Therefore, application was for obtaining the advance ruling in respect of following questions: (a) Whether GST is applicable on electricity and water charges, which are being collected at actual by the Lessor from the Lessee? (b) If answer to Q. No. (a) is yes, then what is the nature of supply and applicable rate of GST? RULING : As per Section 8(a) of the CGST Act, the supply in the present case has to be treated as a supply of service of ‘renting of immovable property’, i.e., the principal supply and shall be leviable to tax accordingly. Thus, GST is applicable on electricity and water charges which are being collected at actual by the Lessor from the Lessee. Duet India Hotels (Hyderabad) (P) Ltd., In re (2025) 123 ITPJ (SG) 334 (AAR) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : Applicant was the authority created under the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994. It entered into concessionaire agreement with M/s. Adani Thiruvananthapuram International Airport Limited (the “Concessionaire”) for operation, management and development of the airport which include civil, mechanical, electrical works, terminal buildings, cargo facilities, runway and all other project assets for a period of 50 years. The applicant filed application for advance ruling raising following questions- (i) Whether the transfer of business by the applicant to M/s. Adani Thiruvananthapuram International Airport Limited be treated as Supply under section 7 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST’) viz-a-viz Kerela State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“KGST”)? (ii) Whether the transfer of business by Airports Authority of India to M/s. Adani Thiruvananthapuram International Airport Limited is treated as supply as going concern and covered in clause 4 of schedule II of CGST Act viz-a-viz KGST? (iii) Whether the transfer of business by M/s. Airports Authority of India to M/s. Adani Thiruvananthapuram International Airport Limited is covered under the Entry No. 2 of the exemption Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28-06-2017 issued under section 11 of CGST Act, 2017? (iv) If the answer is negative, then whether GST is leviable on the transfer of Existing assets (“RAB”), Aeronautical Assets, non-aeronautical assets and Capital work in progress by M/s. Airport Authority of India to the M/s. Adani Thiruvananthapuram International Airport Limited? (v) Whether the aforesaid transfer of asset be treated as services and the classification for the same? (vi) Whether the concession fees paid by M/s. Adani Thiruvananthapuram International Airport Limited to M/s. Airports Authority of India be treated as consideration for transfer of business? (vii) Whether GST is applicable on Monthly/Annual concession fees charged by the Applicant on the M/s. Adani Thiruvananthapuram International Airport Limited? (viii) Whether GST is leviable on the invoice raised by the Applicant for reimbursement of the salary/staff cost on M/s. Adani Thiruvananthapuram International Airport Limited? If yes, at what rate? (ix) 9 Whether GST is applicable on the reimbursement claimed of Municipal tax, Property Tax and Water Charges by the Applicant from M/s. Adani Thiruvananthapuram International Airport Limited? If yes, at what rate? (x) Whether any reversal is required in accordance with section 17(2)/(3) of CGST Act viz-a-viz KSGST Act? RULING : 1. The transaction involved herein is not the transfer of business by the applicant to the concessionaire. However, the concessionaire is supplying the service of developing the airport of the applicant and applicant is supplying the service of manpower, leasing etc., to the concessionaire and both constitutes supply under section 7 of the GST Act. 2. There is no concept of ‘Supply as going concern’ in Schedule 4 of the CGST Act, 2017. The concept therein is that of Transfer as going concern’. The transaction involved herein cannot be treated as a transfer as going concern. 3. No. The said exemption does not cover the activity involved herein. The said entry covers ‘Services by way of transfer of a going concern. 4. Since the assets mentioned have not been transferred to the concessionaire, the question per se is void-ab-initio. However, since the amounts are received as a consideration for leasing/supplying the assets to the concessionaire, GST is payable on the same. 5. There is no transfer of asset and the question is void-ab-initio. 6. No. It is not consideration for transfer of business. 7. Yes. GST is applicable on annual concession fees charged by the applicant on the concessionaire. 8. Yes. GST is leviable on the invoices raised by the applicant for reimbursement of salary/staff cost on the concessionaire. It is to be paid at 9% each towards CGST and SGST or 18% IGST as may be applicable under SAC ‘998519’. 9. reimbursements of such taxes, being reimbursement of expenses, do not attract GST and therefore, GST is not applicable on the reimbursement of such charges. This ruling is applicable only if such taxes are ‘reimbursed’ by the concessionaire to the applicant. If such taxes are embedded in the consideration for lease and cannot be identified, this ruling does not hold good. 10. This ruling is requested without, specifying the context or situation in which the same is put. Therefore, only a general ruling can be offered. If the applicant has inward supply of goods or services or both are used by the registered person partly for effecting taxable supplies including zero-rated supplies under this Act or under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act and partly for effecting exempt supplies under the said Acts, then reversal is to be made as per Section 17 (2). There is no reversal to be made under section 17 (3) since 17 (3) only explains about the value of exempt supply. Airports Authority of India, In re (2025) 123 ITPJ (SG) 327 (AAR) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : Applicant-company was providing services of re-gasification of LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas). The appellant was of the view that during the process of such re-gasification, there was a loss of gas, which was termed as SUG (System Use Gas) and they were not liable to pay GST on such SUG, as a process loss. Accordingly, applicant sought advance ruling on following question: (i) Whether the value attributable to SUG stipulated in the agreement between the applicant and customers is subject to levy of GST and therefore, liable to be included in the consideration for re-gasification services determined as per section 15 of the CGST Act? Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (GAAR) held as follows: The value of SUG is an indispensable part of taxable value for Re-gasification service supply and liable to GST. Assessee challenged the ruling before GAAAR. RULING : The GAAR delivered its ruling without the benefit of examining the data, which was provided for the first time before the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the GAAR. Shell Energy India (P) Ltd., In re (2025) 123 ITPJ (SG) 326 (AAR) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : Applicant-company entered into a turnkey contract with IOCL (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.) for executing EPC work of Acrylic Acid Unit and Butyl Acrylate Unit. Thereafter, during the course of importation, before the goods reach the Customs frontier in India, applicant entered into HSS (High Seas Sale) agreement with IOCL, transferring the ownership of the goods to IOCL at the price agreed in the contract. The appellant raises a custom invoice with respect to such goods and treated this as a separate supply of goods distinct from the works contract supplies. Accordingly, applicant sought advance ruling on following questions: (i) Whether the transaction of sale of goods by applicant to IOCL on High Seas Sale basis in terms of Contract No. 44AC9100-EPCC-1 would be covered under Entry No. 8(b) of Schedule III of the CGST Act and shall be excluded from the value of work contract service for charging GST? (ii) Whether the transaction of sale of goods on high seas sale basis by the Applicant to IOCL in terms of Contract No. 44AC9100-EPCC-1 would be treated as works contract and whether applicant is liable to charge GST on the goods sold on high seas sale basis to IOCL? If yes, what will be the applicable rate of tax on such goods supplied? RULING : (i) The transaction of sale of goods by applicant to IOCL on High Seas Sale (HSS) basis in terms of Contract No. 44AC9100-EPCC-1 is covered under Entry No. 8(b) of Schedule III of the CGST Act. However, the value of such HSS supply would form a part of the transaction value under section 15, ibid, for computing the value of work contract service for charging GST. (ii) The transaction of sale of goods on high seas sale (HSS) basis by the applicant to IOCL in terms of Contract No. 44AC9100-EPCC-1 as has been held supra, is covered under entry 8(b) of Schedule III of the CGST Act, 2017 and therefore the HSS supply is neither a supply of goods nor a supply of services. The GAAAR upheld the above ruling. Tecnimont (P) Ltd., In re (2025) 123 ITPJ (SG) 325 (AAR) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : Applicant was engaged in the manufacture & supply of floor mats for four wheel motor vehicles (cars), which are essentially made of PVC (poly vinyl chloride) material. The applicant sought advance ruling for following question: Whether the floor mat for four wheel motor vehicles (cars) would merit classification under CTH 3918. The GAAR held that PVC floor mats will not fall under 3918 but under 8708. Appellant challenged the ruling of GAAR. RULING : The GAAR correctly held that the PVC floor mats for use in cars supplied by the applicant is classifiable under CTH 8708 & would be leviable to GST @ 28%. Manishaben Vipulbhai Sorathiya, In re (2025) 123 ITPJ (SG) 324 (AAR) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : Applicant was engaged in the business of manufacture of Steel Nails and other steel products. A fire broke out in its factory premises and major quantities of finished goods became unfit for being sold as such and, hence, the damaged finished goods were sold as scrap in the market and applicable GST had been paid on the sale of such scrap. The applicant had claimed input tax credit (ITC) on all the raw materials and other inputs for manufacturing of steel nails. The applicant sought advance ruling in respect of following question- (i) Whether ITC claimed on raw material is required to be reversed, when the raw materials purchased are already used in the manufacture of finished goods and the finished goods are destroyed in the fire accident completely. (ii) Whether ITC claimed on raw material is required to be reversed, When the raw materials procured are lost in the fire accident before use in manufacture of finished goods. (iii) When the destroyed finished goods can be sold as steel scrap in the open market and output tax liability on such supply of scrap is paid. RULING : (i) Yes. ITC is required to be reversed. (ii) Yes. ITC is required to be reversed. (iii) Yes. ITC is required to be reversed. The AAAR upheld the ruling of AAR. Geekay Wires Ltd., In re (2025) 123 ITPJ (SG) 335 (AAR) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : Applicant was engaged in the business of manufacture and supply of pre-engineered buildings and storage racking systems. It was providing canteen and transportation facilities to its employees at subsidized rates as per the terms of the employment agreement. In this regard, The appellant raised following questions for advance ruling: (i) Whether GST is liable to be discharged on the recoveries being made by the appellant from its employees towards the canteen and transportation facilities provided to them? (ii) Whether the appellant is eligible to avail input tax credit in respect of the GST paid on inward supplies used for providing canteen and transportation facilities? (iii) Whether GST is liable to be discharged on the recoveries being made by the appellant from its employees towards the transportation facilities provided to them? (iv) Whether the appellant is eligible to avail input tax credit in respect of the GST paid on inward supplies used for providing transportation facilities? RULING : (i) The recoveries being made by the appellant from its employees towards the canteen and transportation facilities provided to them would be exempt. (ii) ITC available to the extent of cost borne by the appellant. (iii) GST is not applicable on the recoveries being made by the appellant from its employees towards the transportation facilities provided to them. (iv) No. appellant is not eligible to avail input tax credit in respect of the GST paid on inward supplies used for providing transportation facilities. AAAR upheld the above rulings. Kirby Building Systems & Structures India (P) Ltd., In re (2025) 123 ITPJ (SG) 336 (AAR)