TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Dispute over Mineral Mining GST rate unresolved as Authority rejects application due to non-appearance.</h1> <h3>In Re: M/s. Kayden Investments Pvt. Ltd.,</h3> In Re: M/s. Kayden Investments Pvt. Ltd., - 2021 (48) G. S. T. L. 100 (A. A. R. - GST - Haryana) Issues:1. Classification of GST rate for Mineral Mining Rights - 5% or 18%Analysis:1. Classification of GST rate for Mineral Mining Rights - 5% or 18%:The applicant, a mining company engaged in extracting minerals under a contract from the State Government of Haryana, raised a question regarding the appropriate GST rate for the Mineral Mining Rights they pay for. The company contended that since the Mineral Mining Rights are essential for extracting and supplying raw materials, they should be classified under the same category as the extracted raw material and subjected to GST at 5% instead of the residual category at 18%. The company highlighted that the Mineral Mining Rights constitute a significant portion (60-70%) of their total cost and are a primary input for their operations. However, the company, as the recipient of the service, is liable to pay GST on the Mineral Mining Rights under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) basis. The company sought clarification on whether they should discharge their GST liability at 5% (rate applicable on extracted raw material) or 18% (residual category) for the Mineral Mining Rights.Discussion:The Authority for Advance Ruling called upon the applicant to appear before them to decide on the admissibility of the application. Despite multiple notices for appearance, the applicant failed to attend the scheduled meetings. As per the provisions of Section 98(6) of the CGST/HGST Act, the Authority is mandated to pronounce a ruling within 90 days of receiving the application. Due to the applicant's non-appearance and the necessity to adhere to the statutory timeline, the Authority rejected the application under Section 98(2) of the CGST/HGST Act, as the applicant could not be granted any further opportunity for a hearing.In conclusion, the Authority for Advance Ruling, Haryana, rejected the application due to the applicant's non-appearance, thereby leaving the question regarding the appropriate GST rate for Mineral Mining Rights unanswered. The ruling emphasizes the importance of complying with procedural requirements and timelines in seeking advance rulings under the GST regime.
TaxTMI 