<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2021 (1) TMI 372 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402780</link>
    <description>Concessional GST at 5% under Sr. No. 180 of Schedule I was confined to drugs or medicines understood in their ordinary and common-parlance sense, with reference to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, as products used for diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of disease. Bulk drugs such as Danuorubicin, Epirubicin, Idarubicin and Zoledronic Acid were held to be active pharmaceutical ingredients or raw materials used in formulations, not medicines directly administered as such. They therefore did not qualify for the concessional rate merely because they were named in the relevant list. The ruling was against the applicant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Mar 2025 12:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=632771" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (1) TMI 372 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GUJARAT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402780</link>
      <description>Concessional GST at 5% under Sr. No. 180 of Schedule I was confined to drugs or medicines understood in their ordinary and common-parlance sense, with reference to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, as products used for diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of disease. Bulk drugs such as Danuorubicin, Epirubicin, Idarubicin and Zoledronic Acid were held to be active pharmaceutical ingredients or raw materials used in formulations, not medicines directly administered as such. They therefore did not qualify for the concessional rate merely because they were named in the relevant list. The ruling was against the applicant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402780</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>