https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403505 The case involved the classification of bulletproof body building on vehicles for GST purposes. The applicant initially classified the activity under the "goods" category, charging GST at 28%. However, an audit objection suggested it should be classified as a "service" attracting 18% GST. The ruling determined that the activity constitutes a supply of service under service head SAC 9988 (ic), attracting GST at 18%. The issue of refund for excess GST charged was deemed outside the Authority for Advance Ruling's purview. en-us Mon, 24 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Mar 2025 12:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403505 The case involved the classification of bulletproof body building on vehicles for GST purposes. The applicant initially classified the activity under the "goods" category, charging GST at 28%. However, an audit objection suggested it should be classified as a "service" attracting 18% GST. The ruling determined that the activity constitutes a supply of service under service head SAC 9988 (ic), attracting GST at 18%. The issue of refund for excess GST charged was deemed outside the Authority for Advance Ruling's purview. Case-Laws GST Mon, 24 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403505