9911796707
| Article Section | |||||||||||
|
Home |
|||||||||||
Recent Advance Rulings |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
Recent Advance Rulings |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
The applicant is engaged in the processing and sale of frozen seafood domestically as well internationally with its registered brand name. It sells its products through retail outlets and also to institutional customers. Since seafood is highly perishable in nature, they sold them in packages. For retail outlets with its registered brand name whereas to institutional customers such as hotels, restaurants, etc., without bearing its band name. The applicant has sought an Advance Ruling on the above-stated issue. It is a well-known fact that the brand name holder enjoys reputation even though he is not using his registered brand name or logo on the goods. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Australian Foods (India) Private Ltd. reported in 2013 (1) TMI 330 - SUPREME COURT held that even an ordinary name is sufficient rather than a manifestation of a brand name on all the goods. Hon’ble Supreme Court in one more instance held that even the name of some other company, if it is used for the purpose of indicating a connection between the product and that company would be sufficient to constitute a brand. Hence, the AAR – Kerala held that supply of frozen seafood in packages with company name and contact details to institutional customers are taxable under the GST Laws.
The applicant is engaged in the business of subleasing of office spaces as “co-working spaces” and its lease agreement with landlord permits such subleasing and accordingly obtained NOC from the landlord for registering GST for the customers. Though “co-working spaces”, the applicant provides dedicated landline, fax, internet, air conditioning, housekeeping, pantry, power back up and other facilities to each of its clients. It is a known fact that each client or company is a separate and identifiable within the main office premises though functions newly developed business model. The applicant has sought an advance ruling on the above-stated issue. The Authority while examining the issue in detail observed that in this fast-changing world, the traditional office culture is being overshadowed by the shared office space solutions. Further, there are no restrictions under the GST laws for obtaining GST registration to a shared office if the landlord permits such subleasing as per the agreement. Since the GST registration is based on PAN, identification of taxpayer may not be a difficult thing and for GST registration, its rental agreement and /or sublease agreement is a prerequisite to prove its office address. Hence, the AAR ruled that the separate GST registrations are allowed to multiple companies functioning under the ‘co-working space’ model.
The applicant is engaged in the business of selling solar water heaters. Solar power based devices are basically powered by sunlight. There are two versions of solar panels to convert solar light into energy, flat plate and another one is evacuated or vacuum tube collectors. The applicant has sought an Advance Ruling stating whether evacuated or vacuum tube collectors fall under Chapter 84 of HSN which is covered in Sl. No. 234 of Schedule - 1 of Notification No. 01 of 2017 IGST (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 to avail concessional rate of GST? The Authority while hearing the issue observed that solar energy is not converted into electrical energy though it heats the water. Hence, ‘ETC’ is not covered under the said Chapter and accordingly not entitled for concessional GST rate at 5 per cent. Aggrieved by this Ruling, the Applicant has moved Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR) - Karnataka along with an application for condonation of delay of 145 days by stating the reason of getting ‘views’ from Solar Thermal Federation of India, Karnataka Solar Manufacturers Association, Gold Standard Foundation, Ministry of New & Renewable Energy and Customs Authority. The AAAR relying on Section 100 of the Central GST Act, 2017 i.e. the jurisdictional officer or an aggrieved party or applicant may appeal to the Appellate Authority within a period of thirty (30) days from the date on which the ruling communicated. In any case, if the AAAR satisfied so that the appellant was prevented by a sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the prescribed period of thirty days, may grant further extension of not exceeding thirty (30) days for filing an appeal, Hon’ble Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Singh Enterprises v. CCE 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT, CCE v. Hongo India Private Ltd. reported in 2009 (3) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 dismissed the said appeal. To be continued….
By: PRABHAKAR KS - October 15, 2019
Discussions to this article
Nice write-up. Nice compilation of the case subject wise. Thanks for sharing with the readers.
|
|||||||||||
| |
|||||||||||
