9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 142 - AAR - GSTPermission for withdrawal of petition - levy of GST - Collection of amount as re-imbursement of cost of blade soap etc., -collected for removing Mudi of the Devotees in a public place of worship - supply of Goods or Supply of Service - rate of tax - HELD THAT - The applicant has filed application through online ARA-01 Portal on 21-02-2020. However the applicant has filed physical copy of the application along with a letter dated 29.01.2021 requesting this authority to permit them to withdraw their application for advance ruling due to the current pandemic situation created by COVID19. The application filed by the Applicant for advance ruling is disposed off as withdrawn.
Issues:
1. Whether the amount collected for removing Mudi of the Devotees in a public place of worship is subject to GST? 2. If subject to GST, is it considered a supply of Goods or Service? 3. What is the applicable tax rate if it is a supply of Goods or Service? Analysis: The applicant, a Hair Merchant engaged in selling human hair offered by devotees at temples, sought an advance ruling regarding the collection of ?10 for removing Mudi of the Devotees in a public place of worship. The applicant claimed this amount was a reimbursement for the cost of blade and soap used for tonsuring the devotees' heads. The applicant classified the human hair under heading 5010 and supplied it to wholesalers at a NIL rate of GST. The key questions raised were whether the collected amount was subject to GST, whether it constituted a supply of Goods or Service, and the applicable tax rate if it fell under either category. The applicant filed the application for advance ruling online but later submitted a physical copy along with a letter requesting withdrawal due to the COVID-19 pandemic situation. Consequently, the Authority for Advance Rulings disposed of the application as withdrawn without providing a detailed ruling on the tax implications of the amount collected for removing Mudi of the Devotees in a public place of worship. In conclusion, the judgment did not delve into the substantive issues raised by the applicant regarding the tax treatment of the amount collected. The ruling merely acknowledged the withdrawal of the application without providing a definitive answer to the questions posed.
|
