States GST & VAT - QUESTION : Applicant is looking forward to provide pure labor services in relation to Construction. The Applicant entered into an agreement to provide the pure labor Construction Services to M/s BCM BUILDERS LLP. M/S BCM Builders LLP has entered into a contract with Rajasthan Government to construct 380 flats under “Affordable Housing Scheme under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna” (including Material and Labor). Henceforth, BCM Builders LLP has entered into sub contract with the Applicant to receive “Pure Labor Services” for the said project. Scope of Work for the Applicant includes all the Labor related work for construction of flats. The applicant will have all the control over Labor and will be responsible for their dues and concerns. The questions upon which advance ruling was sought by the Applicant are as follows: 1. Whether the entry number 10 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28-6-2017 is applicable on the services of “Pure Labor” provided by the applicant? 2. If the entry number 10 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28-6-2017 is not applicable, then what will be classification and HSN for these services of “Pure Labor” provided by the applicant? RULING : 1. Pure labour contract services have been exempted from levy of duty vide entry No. 10 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28-6-2017 (as amended). While going through the above entry of the notification, it is clearly stipulates that whosoever is supplying the pure labour contract services for the construction of a civil structure or any other original works under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana is exempted from GST. 2. On going through the Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate), it was found that the construction services fall under section 5 of Chapter 99, wherein descriptions of construction service has further been elaborated in items from (i) to (xii). When one goes through the description mentioned against item no. (i) to (xi), the nature of work do not found place in item no. (1) to (xi). As such, it shall fall under the residuary sub-head i.e. (xii) attracting GST at the rate of 18%. Hence, we hold that the service provided by the taxpayer fall under HSN code 9954 (xii) with GST rate 18%. Build Layer Constructions, In re (2025) 124 ITPJ (SG) 512 (AAR) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : The applicant is a wholesaler/trader of baby and child-care products. One of the products supplied by the company is a baby chair. This baby chair is used in cars for the safety of children while driving. The applicant is importing the baby chair from Italy under the HSN code 94018000. Since the applicant has imported the baby chair in HSN code 94018000 and therefore the applicant is supplying the said baby chairs to its Indian customers by mentioning the same HSN i.e. 94018000 on the Tax Invoice issues under CGST Act. The company is also discharging its GST liabilities under the said HSN only and payment of the said GST liability is not disputed by the GST department till the date of filling of this application. The applicant, sought an advance ruling in respect of the following questions: 1. Whether the product namely baby car seat is correctly classified under 94018000? 2. If the above question is negative, then, Whether the product can be classified as baby carriage and the HSN 87150010? OR Whether the product can be considered as Safety Equipment under accessory of vehicle and can be classified under the HSN Chapter 87089900? 3. Whether the entry 210A of Notification No 5/2024-Central Tax (Rate) dated 8-10-2024, applicable on applicant? RULING : 1. As per the applicant, the baby chair is not permanently fixed in car, rather it is used as an attachment over and above the main seat of the car and can be fastened easily as and when required. This explanation clearly points out to the fact that baby seats, as referred to by the applicant, is similar to the one covered under Chapter 9401.80 as per the aforementioned HSN Explanatory Notes. In view of the above, we hold that the baby safety seats supplied by the applicant is correctly classified under Chapter 94018000. 2. Not applicable in view of answer to Question 1. 3. With reference to the applicability of entry 210A of Notification No.5/2024 Central Tax (Rate) dated 8-10-2024, it was found that the said entry covers Tariff item 94012000 i.e. seats of a kind used for motor vehicles. The goods i.e. baby seats are classified under 94018000 and therefore, the said notification would not be applicable to the subject goods i.e. baby seats supplied by the applicant. Artsana India (P) Ltd., In re (2025) 124 ITPJ (SG) 504 (AAR) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : The applicant has installed his own shot blasting machine in the premises of M/s. GPI and M/s. GPI is recovering from him some charges on account of the space/electricity etc. made available to him for the said machine in their premises. The Applicant is using his own steel shots as well as labourers for doing the above said activity. The charges of the Applicant for the above said activity are on per-piece basis. The said castings after processing are handed over to M/s. GPI, who are further processing the said castings and are clearing the same on payment of appropriate GST. Appropriate record of castings provided to the Applicant and returned by him after processing is kept by the Applicant as well as M/s. GPI. The applicant has regularly charged 18% GST on his charges for the above said activity after introduction of GST regime. the applicant, had sought an advance ruling in respect of the following questions: 1. Whether the shot blasting activity carried out by the Applicant on the castings of his customer M/s. GPI within the premises of M/s. GPI by using his own shot blasting machine/steel shots as well as labourers is classifiable as job work service falling under SAC 9988 or not? 2. Whether the said activity will attract 12% GST in terms of clause (id) of Sr. No. 26 of Notification No. 11/2017-CT(R), dt.28-6-2017 or not? RULING : 1. Section 2 (68) of the CGST Act, 2017 defines Job-work as 'any treatment or process undertaken by a person on goods belonging to another registered person'. The one who does the said job-work would be termed as 'job-worker'. The ownership of the goods does not transfer to the job worker but it rests with the principal. The applicant performs this treatment or process on casting belonging to GPI which is a registered person. the short Blasting activity carried out by the applicant on the casting of his customer M/s. Ghatage Patil Industries within the premises of M/s. Ghatage Patil Industries by using his own shot blasting machine/steel shots as well as labourers is classifiable as job work service falling under SAC 9988. 2. Entry (id) covers job work services as defined in section 2(68) of CGST Act, 2017, in respect of treatment or processing undertaken by a person on goods belonging to another registered person. Therefore, Sr. No. 26(id) (residual entry) covers job work where inputs are sent by registered person. The applicant is carrying out the processing on the castings provided by M/s. GPI, who is registered under GST Act and that during the course of job work, ownership of the goods does not change and remains with its client. the service in question falls within the ambit of entry Sr. No. 26 (id) of Notification No. 11/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28-6-2017 as amended vide Notification No. 20/2017-CT (Rate) dated 30-9-2019 and is classifiable under SAC 9988 and will attract GST @ 12% (CGST 6% + SGST 6%) w.e.f. 1-10-2019. Amruta Fettlers, In re (2025) 124 ITPJ (SG) 502 (AAR) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : The Applicant has imported Machineries from the seller against which IGST was paid through Bill of Entry as reflected in GSTR-2A of August 2022 and reflected in GSTR-2B of March 2023. IGST credit was not availed in GSTR-3B of financial year 2022-23. Applicant forgot to avail the credit in GSTR-3B return till 30th November 2023 also. On 21-3-2024, an email received from GST department regarding excess IGST ITC available as per GSTR-2B but not claimed in GSTR-3B, so need to avail & reverse the same in upcoming GSTR-3B return. Then applicant recalled about the left of IGST ITC to avail & accordingly had sought clarification in AAR on the availability of this ITC through the following questions: 1. Whether time limit of availing ITC as mentioned in section 16(4) of CGST Act, 2017 is applicable on ITC eligible as per Bill of Entry? 2. In this case, can applicant avail this IGST paid as per bill of entry in the next GSTR3B? RULING : 1. Section 16(4) aims to ensure timely ITC claims, prevent indefinite carry forward of credits and maintains fiscal discipline. This intent could apply to all forms of ITC, including IGST on imports, regardless of the tax paying documents. Since, ITC in respect of all types intra-state or inter-state supply is governed by section 16 of the CGST Act, all conditions under section 16 including the time limitation apply uniformly to all types of ITC. Hence, the condition of time limitation provided by section 16 (4) is applicable to the transactions of IGST paid on imports. 2. No, in view of the answer given to the first question. ADI Enterprises, In re (2025) 124 ITPJ (SG) 502 (AAR) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : The applicant is a partnership firm engaged in Spice processing unit and is registered under GST. The firm's monthly taxable turnover exceeds Rs. 50 lakh, making it subject to Rule 86B restrictions. Although no individual partner has paid more than Rs. 1 lakh separately, the firm and its partners together have paid well above Rs. 1 lakh in income tax. The issue raised by the applicant for consideration before the Advance Ruling Authority is as follows: 1. Whether the cumulative tax payment of the firm and its partners can be considered for the exemption under Rule 86B? 2. Whether the firm qualifies for exemption, even if no single partner has paid more than Rs. 1 lakh individually? RULING : 1. On going through the provisions of rule 86B ibid, it was found that there is no provision of exemption for such conditions in the said rule where exemption can be consider for total income tax paid by the partners and the firm together. Therefore, the exemption as per rule 86B(a) is not applicable on the taxpayer. 2. The restriction shall not apply, if any of its two partners of the firm have paid more than one lakh rupees as income tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961(43 of 1961) in each of the last two financial years. Further, the taxpayer has submitted the details of income tax paid by the firm and partners during the financial year 2022-23 and financial year 2023-24, which is as under: Financial year Partner 1 Partner 2 Partner 3 Firm Total 2022-23 48,766.00 90,072.00 0.00 0.00 1,38,838.00 2023-24 32,274.00 72,153.00 0.00 0.00 1,04,427.00 From the above submission of the taxpayer, it was found that neither the individual partner nor the firm has paid income tax more than Rs. 1 lakh during the last two financial years. Thus, the exemption as per rule 86B(a) is not applicable on the taxpayer. Aadinath Agro Industries, In re (2025) 124 ITPJ (SG) 511 (AAR) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : The applicant is engaged in the business of erection, commissioning and installation projects in the renewable energy sector. The said scope of work would include EPC contracts for rooftop solar power plant including supply of multiple components within the said power plant. This would include monocrystalline panel, inverter with remote monitoring, fixing structure and relevant accessories. The applicant is working for multiple corporates, Government, Government entities, Indian Railways, etc. The applicant filed application seeking an advance ruling in respect of following questions: (a) Whether the supply of components of the solar power plant along with the erection of the same would be treated as a composite supply under GST? (b) If yes, what should be the classification and rate of GST on the said contract? (c) Further, what would be the value on which the relevant rate of GST would be applicable? (d) Whether Notification No. 24/2018-Central tax (rate) dated 31-12-2018 containing the explanation with the ratio of goods and services as 70:30 would be applicable? RULING : (a) The supply of components of the solar power plant along with the erection of the same would be treated as a composite supply of the nature of works contract. (b) As per Entry no. 201 of Notification No. 01/2017 supra, tax rate should be 12% IGST on seventy per cent. of the gross value charged by the supplier and 18% IGST on thirty per cent. of the gross value charged by the supplier. (c) The value referred to here is the gross consideration charged by the supplier for the entire supply. (d) The answer is in affirmative. Sunshell Power, In re (2025) 124 ITPJ (SG) 517 (AAR) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : The applicant claims that they are covered under the definition of “Panchayat” as defined under Clause (d) of article 243 of the Constitution. They are rendering taxable services namely, Renting of immovable property service and Mandap keeper service. They are providing the functions entrusted to a Panchayat under Eleventh Schedule to article 243G of the Constitution. They are rendering these functions directly as well as through contractors, by way of tender process. One such activity done through tender contractor is collection of entry fees for selling vegetables, fruits, birds and animals etc. for venders/ farmers/ public in the open space/temporary tents on the days fixed for weekly market days. The applicant sought advance ruling on the following questions: (i) Whether the activity of leasing of weekly market to the tender contractors for the purpose collection of fee on the week market days basis from the merchants/ farmers/ public for usage of the open space for selling of fruits / vegetables / domestic animals/birds etc. is an activity covered under the function entrusted to Panchayat under the ELEVENTH SCHEDULE under article 243G as a local authority in which we are engaged as public authority. (ii) If so the above activity shall not be treated as a supply of service and in that case the same is covered as an activity which is not a service as per Central Tax Notification No. 14/2017-Rate, dated 28-6-2017 as amended as well as under State Tax Tamil Nadu G.O. (Ms.) No. 75, dated 29-6-2017-GST as amended and as a result Central Tax ad State Tax are not chargeable for the said activity. RULING : (i) The activity of leasing, to the tender contractor, the right to collect entry fees, for sell vegetables, fruits, birds and animals etc. for venders/farmers/public in the open space/temporary tents on the days fixed for weekly market days would be covered under the function entrusted to Panchayat under article 243G of the Constitution as a local authority engaged as public authority; (ii) Notification No. 14/2017-CT(Rate) dated 28-06-2017 as amended by Notification No. 16/2018-CT (Rate) dated 26-7-2018 issued in terms of section 7(2)(b) of CGST/TNGST Act, 2017, is very much available to claim as the activity is ‘neither supply of goods nor supply of services’. Kannivadi Town Panchayat, In re (2025) 124 ITPJ (SG) 514 (AAR) States GST & VAT - QUESTION : The Applicant was engaged in the business of supplying job work services towards fabrication and attachment of Body of various commercial vehicles such as Tipper Trucks, Bus etc., and various types of Carriers for truck and heavy vehicle manufacturing companies. They sought advance ruling on the given supply, as summarized in the following questions : 1. In view of the above facts and circumstances, whether the activity undertaken by the Applicant would qualify as ‘job work’ as per the provisions of Section 2 (68) of the CGST Act? 2. In view of the above facts and circumstances, whether the activity undertaken by the Applicant would qualify as ‘supply of service’ under section 7 (1A) read with Para 3 of Schedule-Il of the CGST Act? 3. In view of the above facts and circumstances, what is the tariff classification of the supply made by the Applicant and the applicable rate of GST on the said supply? RULING : Member of the Advance Ruling Authority (Central Tax) found that building a body on chassis of a truck also covered under Bus Body Building were to be understood as the services of fabrication of body on chassis provided by their Customer and was thus, rightly covered under Heading 9988 [Manufacturing services on physical inputs (goods) owned by others], which attracted tax rate of 18%. On the other hand, Member of the Advance Ruling Authority (State Tax) found that that the activity of mounting/fabrication of tipper body by the applicant on the chassis provided by the customer was a composite supply with principal supply of goods i.e. tipper body and therefore, was classifiable under chapter heading 8707 attracting tax rate of 28%. Since, both members of the authority had divergent views on the application filed by the applicant, the matter was referred to Appellate Authority, in terms of Section 98 (5) of the CGST Act, 2017. Kamal Coach Works (P) Ltd., In re (2025) 124 ITPJ (SG) 510 (AAR) States GST & VAT - Section 130—Confiscation of goods and levy of penalty—Provisional release of vehicles—Requirment to challenge the confiscation order—Validity of Shaji George v. STO (2025) 124 ITPJ (SG) 500 (Ker-HC) : 2025 TaxPub(GST) 1464 (Ker-HC) States GST & VAT - Section 73—Determination of tax—Notices and orders uploaded on ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ tab—Validity of St. Xaviers College Calcutta Alumni Association v. Dy. Commr. of Revenue, CGST (2025) 124 ITPJ (SG) 519 (Kol-HC) : 2025 TaxPub(GST) 1438 (Cal-HC)