Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to carry forward excess VAT/TDS as transitional input tax credit under Section 140(1) of the Tripura State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 despite the restriction on input tax credit for works contract services under Section 17(5)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The petitioner sought to migrate excess amount deducted during the VAT regime as transitional credit through TRAN-1. The Court noted that Section 140(1) permits carry forward only of credit that is otherwise admissible as input tax credit under the GST regime. It further held that Section 17(5)(c) expressly bars input tax credit on works contract services used for construction of immovable property, except where such service is used for further supply of works contract service. The petitioner's activity of laying pipelines for the service recipient fell within that barred category, and the credit claimed could not be treated as admissible merely because it had arisen under the earlier tax regime. The Court also accepted the concurrent findings that the transitional claim was unsupported by the records referred to by the authorities.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to transition the claimed amount as input tax credit, and the demand, interest, and penalty were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Transitional credit under Section 140(1) is available only to the extent the underlying credit is admissible under the GST regime, and a credit expressly barred by Section 17(5)(c) cannot be migrated as input tax credit.

Issues: Whether the Board of Discipline constituted under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 is a Tribunal amenable to supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Board was held to be a professional disciplinary body, not a forum deciding a lis between contesting parties. A Tribunal, for the purposes considered, must exercise transferred judicial power, decide disputes between parties, and adjudicate a lis. A complaint before the Board only triggers scrutiny of alleged professional misconduct and does not involve adjudication of rights and liabilities as between adversaries. The mere observance of natural justice or hearing both sides does not by itself convert such a body into a Tribunal. On that basis, the Board was found not to fall within the category of bodies subordinate to the High Court for Article 227 supervision.

Conclusion: The Board of Discipline is not a Tribunal within the meaning of Article 227 and the revision was not maintainable; the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A professional disciplinary body that does not decide a lis between contesting parties and is not vested with transferred judicial power is not a Tribunal amenable to Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction.

The applicant, M/s PPS Builders Private Limited, sought clarification on whether to charge GST at 12% or 18% for contracts executed before the notification No. 03/2022-Central Tax (Rate) dated 13.07.2022, which increased the GST rate from 12% to 18% effective from 18.07.2022.

The applicant is involved in civil construction work primarily with government departments. The contract in question was awarded by Aligarh Smart City Limited (ASCL) and executed on 27th December 2021. The applicant argued that the GST rate applicable at the time of bidding was 12%, and sought clarification on the applicable rate after the notification.

The Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) examined the provisions under Section 14 of the CGST Act, 2017, which deals with changes in the rate of tax in respect of supply of goods or services. The AAR noted that the rate of GST on work contracts for roads, bridges, railways, metros, etc., was increased from 12% to 18% effective from 18.07.2022.

1) For contracts where advance payments were received or invoices were issued before 18.07.2022, the applicable GST rate is 12%.

2) For contracts where advance payments were received and invoices were issued after 18.07.2022, the applicable GST rate is 18%.

The ruling is valid within the jurisdiction of the Authority for Advance Ruling, Uttar Pradesh, and subject to the provisions under Section 103(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, until declared void under Section 104(1) of the Act.

Issues: (i) Whether frozen chicken supplied in wholesale packs bearing the declaration "packed exclusively for institutional sale and not for retail sale" is eligible for exemption when sold directly to institutional consumers; (ii) whether the same goods are exempt when supplied to a distributor who further supplies them to institutional consumers, provided the distributor is a wholesale dealer; (iii) whether supply of the same goods to non-institutional consumers is taxable at 5% GST.

Issue (i): Whether frozen chicken supplied in wholesale packs bearing the declaration "packed exclusively for institutional sale and not for retail sale" is eligible for exemption when sold directly to institutional consumers.

Analysis: The exemption under Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate) applies to goods other than fresh or chilled that are not pre-packaged and labelled. The expression "pre-packaged and labelled" is linked to the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the declarations required under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. The supply qualifies for exemption only where the package is meant for institutional consumers and the institutional consumer conditions are satisfied, including that the goods are for use by the institution and not for commercial or trade purposes.

Conclusion: The supply is exempt only if the institutional-consumer conditions are established; otherwise, exemption is not available.

Issue (ii): Whether the same goods are exempt when supplied to a distributor who further supplies them to institutional consumers, provided the distributor is a wholesale dealer.

Analysis: A supply intended for institutional consumers may retain the exemption when routed through a distributor, but the end use must still fall within the exclusion for institutional consumers under Rule 3(c) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. The exemption depends on the same statutory conditions being met, and the intermediary must be a wholesale dealer.

Conclusion: The supply is exempt only if the goods are ultimately for institutional use and the distributor is a wholesale dealer.

Issue (iii): Whether supply of the same goods to non-institutional consumers is taxable at 5% GST.

Analysis: Once the goods are supplied to non-institutional consumers, the exclusion from the exemption entry does not apply. Such goods fall within the rate entry for pre-packaged and labelled goods under Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate), attracting GST at the prescribed rate.

Conclusion: The supply to non-institutional consumers is taxable at 5% GST.

Final Conclusion: Exemption was recognized only for supplies that satisfy the statutory institutional-consumer conditions, while supplies to non-institutional consumers were held taxable.

Ratio Decidendi: A packaged commodity is exempt from GST only when it falls outside the "pre-packaged and labelled" category by satisfying the Legal Metrology-based institutional-consumer exclusion; otherwise, the applicable GST rate applies.

Issues: Whether a bank is entitled to Cenvat credit of the service tax paid on the insurance premium paid to the Deposit Insurance & Credit Guarantee Corporation for deposit insurance.

Analysis: The issue was treated as covered by the Larger Bench decision in South Indian Bank and by the subsequent judgment of the Kerala High Court. The reasoning accepted that banking business depends on acceptance of deposits and lending, that deposit insurance is a statutory requirement connected with carrying on banking activity, and that the premium paid for such insurance has a direct nexus with the bank's taxable business operations.

Conclusion: The bank was entitled to take Cenvat credit on the premium paid to the Deposit Insurance & Credit Guarantee Corporation.

Issues: Whether recovery of subsidised amount from employees for canteen facility amounts to supply under the GST law and whether GST is leviable on such recovery in both an in-house canteen model and a third-party operated canteen model.

Analysis: The canteen was held to be a statutory facility required under the Factories Act, 1948, but the provision of food at concessional rates was still found to be an activity in furtherance of business under the GST framework. The amounts recovered from employees were treated as consideration for supply, since the employment documents expressly provided for subsidised canteen recovery and the facility was not shown to be free of cost. The ruling applied the definition of consideration, outward supply, and the service classification in Schedule II to hold that food supplied for valuable consideration through the canteen constituted a supply of service. The clarification on employee perquisites was distinguished on the footing that GST exemption was confined to perquisites forming part of the employment contract and provided free of cost, whereas the recovered subsidised amount remained taxable. The pure agent contention for the third-party operated canteen was rejected because the employees had not authorised the applicant to act as their agent and the third-party arrangement did not alter the applicant's supply to its employees.

Conclusion: The recovery of subsidised canteen charges from employees amounts to supply and GST is payable on the amount recovered in both models.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an employer provides canteen facility to employees for a subsidised charge pursuant to an express employment arrangement, the recovered amount constitutes consideration for a taxable supply of service, even if the canteen is maintained to satisfy a statutory obligation.