Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
The AAR held that the applicant's hotel will not qualify as a "specified premises" for FY 2025-26 because, for FY 2024-25, the per-room combined charge under the American or Continental Plan did not exceed Rs.7,500 per day; accordingly restaurant services to walk-in guests remain taxable under the ordinary rate applicable to standalone restaurant supply. The Authority further held that if in any subsequent financial year a unit of accommodation is charged at above Rs.7,500 (inclusive of food under the applicable plan, even if itemised), the premises will be treated as "specified premises" for the next financial year and restaurant services to walk-in guests will attract 9% CGST + 9% SGST.
The AAR held that the applicant's hotel will not qualify as a "specified premises" for FY 2025-26 because, for FY 2024-25, the per-room combined charge under the American or Continental Plan did not exceed Rs.7,500 per day; accordingly restaurant services to walk-in guests remain taxable under the ordinary rate applicable to standalone restaurant supply. The Authority further held that if in any subsequent financial year a unit of accommodation is charged at above Rs.7,500 (inclusive of food under the applicable plan, even if itemised), the premises will be treated as "specified premises" for the next financial year and restaurant services to walk-in guests will attract 9% CGST + 9% SGST.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.