States GST & VAT - QUESTION : Applicant sought advance ruling in respect of the following questions – 1. Classification and GST Rate applicable to the work undertaken by the applicant of “Reconstruction, Maintenance, housekeeping and security at Kalamboli Goods Shed near Panvel for 90% proportion of Terminal charges a consideration” 2. Whether Central Railway is entitled to claim ITC (Input tax Credit for the GST payable on the payment made to the Applicant for the said work? RULING : 1. The services provided by the applicant will be classified as mixed supply with works contract (repairs and maintenance) services classifiable under Heading 995419 having the highest rate of tax of 18% (9% CGST + 9% SGST). Hence, this supply of “reconstruction, maintenance, housekeeping and security” will be liable to tax at the rate of 18% (9% CGST+9% SGST) as mixed supply. 2. Not answered. Fly Ash Movers India (P) Ltd., In re (2025) 124 ITPJ (SG) 143 (AAR) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : Applicant-company sought advance ruling in respect of the following questions. (1) whether the recoveries made by the Applicant from the employees for providing canteen facility to its employees is taxable under the GST laws? (2) whether the recoveries made by the Applicant from the employees for providing bus transport facilities to its employees is taxable under the provisions of CGST Act? (3) whether the Applicant would be exempted under the SI. No. 15 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate)? (4) Without prejudice, even if GST is payable in respect of aforesaid employee recoveries, what would be the value on which GST is payable? (5) This advance ruling is also sought to ascertain whether the notice pay recoveries made by the Applicant from its employees for not serving the notice period is taxable under the GST laws? RULING : 1. Answered in the Affirmative 2. Answered in the Affirmative 3. Answered in the Negative 4. Value on which GST is payable is the actual amount of recoveries made from the employees. 5. Answered in the Negative Ferrero India (P) Ltd., In re (2025) 124 ITPJ (SG) 142 (AAR) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : Applicant-company, having a manufacturing plant, had engaged various food and transport service providers, who provide food and transportation facilities to the Applicant’s employees. The applicant, sought an advance ruling in respect of the following questions. 1: Whether the deduction of a nominal amount by the Applicant from the salary of the Employees who are availing the facility of food provided in the factory premises would be considered as a “Supply of Service” by the Applicant under the provisions of Section 7 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? (a) In case answer to above is yes, whether GST is applicable on the nominal amount to be deducted from the salaries of employees? (b) Whether ITC is available to the Applicant on GST charged by the Canteen Service Providers for providing the catering services? 2. (a) Whether the services by the way of non-air-conditioned bus transportation facility provided by the Transport Service Providers would be construed as ‘supply of service’ by the Applicant to its employees under the provisions of section 7 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? (b) Whether ITC is available to the Applicant on GST charged by the Transport Service Providers for providing the non-air-conditioned bus transportation services? RULING : 1. Answered in the affirmative (a) Nominal amounts deducted are not in the nature of perquisite provided to the employees and liable for levy of GST (b) Answered in the negative 2. (a) Answered in the negative (b) Answered in the negative Bridgestone India (P) Ltd., In re (2025) 124 ITPJ (SG) 140 (AAR) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : Applicant sought advance ruling in respect of the following questions – 1. Whether assignment of Lease Hold Rights of land by the Applicant in terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement qualifies as taxable supply of services under GST Laws? If yes, whether GST would apply on the price agreed for transfer of Lease Hold Rights under the Asset Purchase Agreement? 2. Whether the transfer by way of sale of building by the Applicant to HMI in terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement qualifies as ‘neither a supply of goods nor a supply of services’ under section 7 read with entry 5 of Schedule III of the GST Laws? 3. Whether the sale of items of plant and machinery in terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement qualifies as taxable supply of individual goods under GST Laws? If yes, whether GST would apply on the price agreed between the parties for the sale of each such items under the Asset Purchase Agreement, as per classification and rate applicable to each item? RULING : 1. Yes, assignment of Lease Hold Rights of land by the Applicant in terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement qualifies as taxable supply of services under GST Laws. GST would apply on the price agreed for transfer of Lease Hold Rights under the Asset Purchase Agreement. The activity of assignment is in the nature of agreeing to do the transfer of the applicant’s leasehold rights in favour of the assignee. It is a service classifiable under “Other miscellaneous service” (SAC 999792) and taxable at 18% under SI No.35 of Notification No. 11/2017-CT(Rate) dt. 28-6-2017, as amended from time to time. 2. No, the transfer by way of sale of building by the Applicant to HMI in terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement does not qualify as ‘neither a supply of goods nor a supply of services’ under section 7 read with entry 5 of Schedule III of the GST Laws. Transfer of building does not constitute to be ‘sale of building’. Transfer is in the nature assignment of leasehold rights in the building. The activity of assignment is in the nature of agreeing to do the transfer of the applicant’s leasehold rights in favour of the assignee. It is a service classifiable under “Other miscellaneous service” (SAC 999792) and taxable at 18% under SI.No. 35 of Notification No. 11/2017-CT(Rate) dt. 28/06/2017, as amended from time to time. 3. Yes, the sale of items of plant and machinery in terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement qualifies as taxable supply of individual goods under GST Laws. GST would apply on the price agreed between the parties for the sale of each such items under the Asset Purchase Agreement or the amount of input tax credit availed, if any, on such capital goods reduced by such percentage points as may be prescribed, which ever is higher, as provided under section 18 (6) of the CGST Act, as per classification and rate applicable to each item. General Motors India (P) Ltd., In re (2025) 124 ITPJ (SG) 143 (AAR) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : Applicant, a partnership firm, engaged in trading of goods which includes stationary products, readymade garments etc. The Firm had received a purchase order from Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation (‘BMC’) for supply of stationery items to students of Education Department of BMC. Therefater, It sought advance ruling in respect of the following question – 1. What is the HSN code of the Geometry Compass Box supplied by the Applicant to BMC. 2. What is the GST rate at which the said supply should have been made to the BMC? RULING : 1. The Geometry Compass Box supplied by the applicant to BMC amounts to mixed supply under section 2 (74) and is appropriately classifiable under Chapter Sub Heading 90178010, being HSN of the goods that attracts highest rate of tax. 2. The rate of GST applicable would be 18% (9% CGST + 9% SGST). Amardeep Udyog, In re (2025) 124 ITPJ (SG) 140 (AAR) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : Applicant-company was involved in the business of manufacturing of automotive components. It sought advance ruling in respect of the following question – (a) Whether the GST would be payable on recoveries made from the employees towards providing canteen facility at subsidized rates in the factory and office? If Yes, what should be the value on which the tax should be payable? (b) Whether the GST would be payable on the recoveries made from the employees towards providing bus transportation facility? If Yes, whether the Applicant is exempted under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax(Rate)? (c) Whether the ITC of the input services received in respect of the services procured in respect of bus transportation services would be available? RULING : 1. GST is payable on the value of the recoveries made from the employees towards providing canteen facility at subsidized rates in the factory and office. 2. Yes, GST is payable on the value of the recoveries made from the employees towards providing bus transportation facility. As discussed above, the Applicant is not exempted under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax(Rate). 3. No, the ITC of the input services received in respect of the services procured in respect of bus transportation services would not be available Spicer India (P) Ltd., In re (2025) 124 ITPJ (SG) 139 (AAR) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : The applicant is engaged in the business of manufacturing of rollers undertake the expansion project that involve the installation of Pre-Engineered Building Structure (PEB) to support the 10 tan overhead crane. The PEB include large foundation, pillars and beams, which was essential for operation of crane. The applicant sought advance ruling on the below mentioned question, viz: Whether proportionate Input Tax Credit is admissible for supply of the following goods and services: (a) Steel, Cement and other consumables etc., to the extent of their actual usage in the execution of works contract service when supplied for construction of immovable property, in the form of the factory which is an Integrated Factory Building with Gantry Beam, which in turn is used for mounting across the pre-cast concrete beams, poles over which the crane would be operated; (b) Installation and Erection Services of the PEB when supplied for construction of immovable property, in the form of the factory which is an Integrated Factory Building with Gantry Beam, which in turn is used for mounting across the pre-cast concrete beams, poles and over which the crane would be operated; (c) Other capital goods like rails, electrification, etc. installed or erected for smooth operation of the crane. RULING : No proportionate Input Tax Credit is admissible for supply of the following goods and services: (a) Steel, Cement and other consumables etc., to the extent of their actual usage in the execution of works contract service when supplied for construction of immovable property, in the form of the factory which is an Integrated Factory Building with Gantry Beam, which in turn is used for mounting across the pre-cast concrete beams, poles over which the crane would be operated; (b) Installation and Erection Services of the PEB when supplied for construction of immovable property, in the form of the factory which is an Integrated Factory Building with Gantry Beam, which in turn is used for mounting across the pre-cast concrete beams, poles and over which the crane would be operated; (c) Other capital goods like rails, electrification, etc. installed or erected for smooth operation of the crane HMSU Rollers (India) (P) Ltd., In re (2025) 124 ITPJ (SG) 137 (AAR) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : The applicant entered into a Dealership and Service Representation agreement with foreign supplier. In terms of the said agreement, they are obliged to provide warranty service to the customers of foreign supplier. As a part of the warranty service, the applicant requires spare parts, which are imported. Foreign supplier pays the IGST in respect of the said imports. Since warranty is free, the applicant, in respect of the said supply, raises the invoice against foreign supplier for the supply of warranty service. The applicant has sought a ruling on the following question : “Whether the IGST on import of parts which has been paid by the foreign supplier is available to the applicant”. RULING : The IGST is borne by foreign supplier, and the credit is not a ‘vested right’ at the time of receipt of inputs but only on satisfying all ‘vesting conditions’, including its participation in a taxable outward supply, would it become available. Thus, the applicant is not eligible for IGST on imports of parts paid by the foreign supplier, in terms of section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017. Enerzi Microwave Systems (P) Ltd., In re (2025) 124 ITPJ (SG) 136 (AAR) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : Applicant sought advance ruling in respect of following – Whether ‘Geo-Membrane for Water Proof Lining - Type-II as per IS 153151:2015’ is classifiable under Chapter Heading 5911 10 00? RULING : Yes, the product Geo Membrane for Water Proof Lining-Type-II as per IS 153151:2015 is classifiable under Tariff item 5911 10 00. Hari Om Flexipack Industries, In re (2025) 124 ITPJ (SG) 145 (AAR) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : The applicant is engaged in manufacturing of “Blades” cleared as “Spare Parts” for being used in Agricultural Machines, viz., Chaff Cutters Machine which is used for Cutting Straw used for Feeding Animal sand clearing the same under CTH 82084000 of the Tariff Act with GST @18%. They sought advance ruling on following question. “HSN Classification of “Blades” cleared as “Spare Parts” for being used in Agricultural Machines, viz., Chaff Cutters which is meant and used for Cutting Straw for preparing Animal Feed?” RULING : According to rule 1 of the Interpretative Rules “classification shall be determined according to the terms of the heading and any relative section or Chapter Notes”. Thus, the blades are classifiable under Chapter Heading 8208 4000 and attract GST rate of 18%. Allied Castalloys India (P) Ltd., In re (2025) 124 ITPJ (SG) 146 (AAR)