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>Authority for Advance Rulings withdraws application without ruling on GST for removing Mudi in place of worship</h1> <h3>In Re: M/s. Sarangapani Jayakumar, S Jayakumar (Hair Merchant)</h3> In Re: M/s. Sarangapani Jayakumar, S Jayakumar (Hair Merchant) - TMI Issues:1. Whether the amount collected for removing Mudi of the Devotees in a public place of worship is subject to GSTRs.2. If subject to GST, is it considered a supply of Goods or ServiceRs.3. What is the applicable tax rate if it is a supply of Goods or ServiceRs.Analysis:The applicant, a Hair Merchant engaged in selling human hair offered by devotees at temples, sought an advance ruling regarding the collection of Rs. 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 Consequently, the Authority for Advance Rulings disposed of the application as withdrawn without providing a detailed ruling on the tax implications of the amount collected for removing Mudi of the Devotees in a public place of worship.In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.
TaxTMI 