Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 95955 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The AAR held that the applicant's product classified under tariff heading 2302.10 as "cattle feed" qualifies for GST exemption under Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate), S. No. 102, only when supplied for direct feeding to cattle. However, when the product is used as an ingredient to produce a new feed with enhanced nutritive value and not fed directly to animals, it loses the character of "cattle feed" and thus does not qualify for exemption. Regarding the documentation required from customers to claim exemption, the AAR found the query outside its jurisdiction under Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, and accordingly declined to issue any ruling on that matter.
The AAR held that the applicant's product classified under tariff heading 2302.10 as "cattle feed" qualifies for GST exemption under Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate), S. No. 102, only when supplied for direct feeding to cattle. However, when the product is used as an ingredient to produce a new feed with enhanced nutritive value and not fed directly to animals, it loses the character of "cattle feed" and thus does not qualify for exemption. Regarding the documentation required from customers to claim exemption, the AAR found the query outside its jurisdiction under Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, and accordingly declined to issue any ruling on that matter.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.