A. CIRCULARS
(i) Clarifications – DIN is not required for GST Portal Communications – Circular no.249/06/2025-GST dated 9th June, 2025.
By the above Circular, it has been clarified that Document Identification Number (DIN) is not required to be quoted on communications generated through the GST common portal, as these documents are assigned a Reference Number (RFN) that can be verified online.
B. ADVISORY
i) Vide GSTN dated 14.5.2025, the information relating to appeal withdrawal with respect to Waiver Scheme is provided.
ii) Vide GSTN dated 16.5.2025, the information relating to reporting values in Table 3.2 of GSTR-3B is provided.
iii) Vide GSTN dated 7.6.2025, the information regarding non-editability of auto-populated liability in GSTR-3B is provided.
iv) Vide GSTN dated 7.6.2025, the information about time barring of GST Return on expiry of three years is provided.
v) Vide GSTN dated 10.6.2025, the information about system Validation for filing of Refund Applications on GST Portal for QRMP Taxpayers is provided.
vi) Vide GSTIN dated 11.6.2025, the information about filing of Amnesty applications under section 128A of the CGST Act is provided.
vii) Vide GSTN dated 12.6.2025, the information about filing of SPL-01/SPL-02, where payment made through GSTR 3B and other cases, is provided.
C. ADVANCE RULINGS
ITC vis-à-vis blocking of ITC u/s.17(5)(b)
Sikka Ports & Terminals Ltd.
(AAAR Order No. GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2024/05 (in Appl. No. Advance Ruling/SGST&CGST/2021/AR/29) dated: 30th December, 2024) (Guj)
The present appeal was filed by the department i.e. Assistant Commissioner, Central GST & Excise, (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’) against the Advance Ruling No. Guj/GAAR/R/57/2021 dated 29.10.2021 – 2021-VIL- 437-AAR, passed by the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling [GAAR].
The brief facts are that M/s. Sikka Ports & Terminal Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘respondent’) is engaged in the activity of operating a port and terminal handling facility at Sikka Port for receipt of crude oil and other feedstock as well as for evacuation of various finished products of the crude oil refinery set up by Reliance Industries Limited (‘RIL’) at Jamnagar.
It was their case that they provide port and terminal handling services which include loading and unloading of cargo, transportation of cargo from the vessels berthed in the sea to the port, berthing facilities to the vessel, storage facilities etc., which should be treated as a composite supply of ‘Port and waterway operation services (excluding cargo handling) such as operation services of ports, docks, light houses, light ships etc.’ classifiable under heading 996751.
It was further case of Respondent that Very Large Crude Carriers (‘VICCs’), which transport crude oil and other feedstock need a very deep draught to drop anchor, hence, VLCCs berth in mid-sea and discharge their liquid cargo there. Sub-sea pipelines are laid to transport the discharged cargo to bring it in storage near the shore. It was submitted that VLCC tanks are required to be connected to the sub-sea pipelines for which expert divers have to be employed to connect the discharge pipes of the vessel to the sub-sea pipelines. These divers and their diving equipments are stationed on the Diving Support Vessel (DSV), which are required to be manned, operated and maintained by third party contractors, who are specialists in this field. Further, to guard the port facilities, particularly the SPMs, MTFs and subsea pipelines, all of which are located mid-sea, the respondent is also required to have a robust security and patrolling mechanism for which they employ Security Patrol Vessels (SPVs) which not only perform the function of providing security but also enable the respondent to comply with its obligations under the environmental laws.
Based on above facts, AR was sought on following questions:
“1. Whether M/s. Sikka Ports & Terminals Limited, is entitled to avail Input Tax Credit (‘ITC’) on services procured for the operation and maintenance of Diving Support Vehicle owned by them and used by it for supplying port and terminal handling services?
2. Whether the M/s. Sikka Ports & Terminals Limited, is entitled to avail Input Tax Credit (‘ITC’) on services procured for hiring, and for operation and maintenance of Security Patrol Vessel used by it for supplying port and terminal handling services?”
AAR, vide its impugned order dated 29th October, 2021, answered the aforementioned questions as under:
“i. M/s Sikka is entitled to avail ITC on the services procured for the operation and maintenance of DSVs: Relsagar & Reldarshan.
ii. M/s Sikka is entitled to avail ITC on the services procured for the operation and maintenance of SPVs: Eagle, Chetak, Calypso fortune & ML Noorani.”
The department has filed this appeal against above ruling. In appeal, the department sought to prove that the conclusion arrived at by AAR is incorrect in many ways.
The ld. AAAR referred to relevant provisions of section 17(5) and reproduced the same in order. The ld. AAAR observed that the ruling sought was specifically on eligibility of ITC in respect of [a] hiring services of SPV, and [b] services procured for operation and maintenance of DSV and SPV for rendering port and terminal handling services.
On analysis of provision of section 17(5)(ab), the ld. AAAR held that the AAR/AAAR being creature of statute cannot stretch the statute and held that ITC for repairs and maintenance of DSV and SPV would not be available to the respondent, since the vessels per se are not used for transportation of goods.
In respect of ITC of hiring services of SPV, the ld. AAAR observed that the SPV is not used for further supply of such vessel. In other words, it is neither used for transportation of passenger nor for imparting training on navigating such vessels. The contention of respondent that they are used for transportation of goods was not approved by the AAAR as it was only meant for security patrolling services and not for transportation.
The ld. AAAR held that the SPV is not being used for given purposes in section 17(5)(b)(i) read with clause (aa). Accordingly, the ld. AAAR held that the ITC in respect of hiring of vessel (SPV) is blocked under section 17(5).
In effect, the ld. AAAR reversed the AR making the respondent ineligible to ITC in respect of both the above items.
Excess – Pure Service to Government
Ravindra Navnath Satpute (Dewoo Engineers)
(AAR Order No. GST-ARA-15/2024-25/B-158 dated: 27th March, 2025) (Mah)
The applicant jointly owns property at C.S. no.690 5, Plot no.24, Balikashram Road, Ahmednagar- 414001. Said Property is provided on rental basis for 36 months to Sant Sakhubai Government Girls Hostel Ahmednagar, a hostel run by the Department of Social Justice & Special Assistance Department of Maharashtra Government. Said hostel is registered under GST as TDS Deductor, vide GSTIN 27PNES19339F1DZ. Based on above facts, the applicant has raised following questions for ruling by the ld. AAR.
“1. Whether such service is taxable or exempt?
2. If the service is taxable, then what will be the time of supply?
3. If the service is taxable, then whether Tax is payable under Reveries charge or under Forward charge mechanism?
4. As both owners are registered under GST, separately, is it appropriate to disclose all receipts on applicants’ registration number?
5. Whether separate registration Under GST is required by joint name?”
The applicant submitted that GST is not applicable on above transaction as being covered by Entry No.12 of the Exemption Notification No.12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 relating to residential property.
By additional submission, exemption was claimed vide entry 3 in Notification no.12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June,2017 on the ground that Pure services (excluding works contract service or other composite supplies involving supply of any goods) provided to the Central Government, State Government or Union territory or local authority by way of any activity in relation to any function entrusted to a Panchayat under article 243G of the Constitution or in relation to any function entrusted to a Municipality under article 243W of the Constitution, are exempt from GST. It was submitted that in the present case, the State Government is taking the property on rent for welfare of under-privileged section of the society and in particular, girls and therefore services provided to “Sant Sakhubai Government Girls Hostel Ahmednagar”, will be covered under the functions entrusted under Article 243W and / or 243G and accordingly exempt. Argument was also advanced in relation to other questions.
The ld. AAR referred to entry at sl.no.3 of the Notification No.12/2017-C.T. (Rate) dated 28th June, 2017 and reproduced the same as under:
The ld. AAR observed that the services provided by applicant are renting of immovable property services and do not involve any supply of goods and hence pure service. It is further observed that since the services are provided to Social Justice and Special Assistance Department of Maharashtra Government, the services are Provided to the State Government.
The ld. AAR referred to articles 243G and 243W of the Constitution of India. From rent agreement, the ld. AAR observed that the Government has taken said property on rent for accommodation of girls from Backward Classes.
The ld. AAR, on examining article 243G and 243W, observed as under:
“5.8 We observe that the Articles 243G and 243W of the Indian Constitution along with the eleventh and twelfth Schedule to the Constitution, entrust panchayats and municipalities with the responsibilities of planning and implementation of the various schemes for ensuring social justice and development of the weaker sections of the society, which clearly includes the girls and women from, the Backward classes/Scheduled Tribes. Thus, any welfare measure undertaken by the panchayats and municipalities for the social development of the girls belonging to the backward classes/Scheduled Tribes, including the residential accommodation of the girls or women, will definitely come within the ambit of the functions entrusted to a Panchayat under article 243G or to a municipality under article 243W of the Constitution of India”
In view of above, the ld. AAR held that the renting out of immovable property to the State Government, is an activity in relation to the function entrusted to a Panchayat under article 243G of the Constitution, or in relation to the function entrusted to a Municipality under article 243W of the Constitution, thereby, eligible for exemption from GST in terms of the exemption entry at Sl. No. 3 of the Notification No. 12/2017-C.T. (Rate) dated 28th June, 2017.
The ld. AAR also held that since activity is held to be exempt from the levy of GST, there is no question of application of the TDS provisions under Section 51 of CGST Act, 2017.
Accordingly, the ld. AAR decided questions in favour of the applicant.
Classification – Baby Car Seat used in Motor Cars
Artsana India Pvt. Ltd.
(AAR Order No. GST-ARA-47/2024-25/B-203 dated: 28th April, 2025) (Mah)
The applicant sought an advance ruling in respect of the following questions.
“1. Whether the product namely baby car seat is correctly classified under 94018000?
2. If the above question is negative, then,
a. whether the product can be classified as baby carriage and the HSN 87150010 OR
b. Whether the product can be considered as Safety Equipment under accessory of vehicle and can be classified under the HSN Chapter 87089900?
3. Whether the entry 210A of Notification No 5/2024- Central Tax (Rate) dated 8th October, 2024, applicable on applicant?”
The facts are that the applicant is a wholesaler/trader of baby and child-care products. The products of applicant are designed to support the health and well-being of infants and children. The applicant also supplies toys, baby carriages, baby chairs etc.
One of the products supplied by the applicant is a baby chair used in cars for the safety of children while driving. This baby chair can be affixed with the help of a clip on the main seat of the car without making any structural change in the design of the car seat. It is also not permanently fixed in cars, but as an attachment over and above the main seat of the car which can be fastened easily as and when required.
It was submitted that the baby chair can be used for babies only and there is no additional use of the said chair, other than the safety and comfort of the child in the car while travelling.
The applicant was importing the baby chair from Italy under the HSN code 94018000.
The questions as above, were posed as the applicant came to know that such kind of baby chair may be treated as safety equipment for cars and the HSN used by applicant may not be correct.
The applicant justified its classification with reference to analysis of relevant HSN i.e. HSN 94018000.
The applicant also gave its submission in respect of applicability of alternative HSN i.e. HSN 87150010 or 87089900.
The department also submitted its written submission. The ld. AAR, after referring to classification method under GST, referred to the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 in order to find out the correct classification of the given product.
After going through HSN 9401, the AAR observed that though chairs are designed specifically for use in a motor vehicle, they cannot be classified under 94012000 as seats of a kind used for motor vehicles because these seats are not used for motor vehicles but are used in addition to the normal seats which are attached to a motor vehicle. Such seats are attached on to the already existing seats of a motor vehicle, whereas heading 94012000 covers the basic seats which are used for a motor vehicle whereas this chair is an additional special attachment affixed to the seat of a motor vehicle for safe carriage of the baby, while driving the vehicle.
The ld. AAR observed that as per HSN Explanatory Notes, baby seats, as referred to by the applicant, is covered under Chapter 9401.80. The ld. AAR held that the baby safety seats supplied by the applicant is correctly classifiable under Chapter 94018000 and not in 94012000.
Regarding alternate argument of being covered by as baby carriage under 878089900 or as a safety equipment under accessory of vehicle.
The ld. AAR confirmed the classification under 94018000.
Supply of Service vis-à-vis Liquidated Damages
GSPC (JPDA) LTD.
(AAAR Order No. GST/GAAAR/APPEAL/2025/02 (in Appl. No. Advance Ruling/SGST & CGST/2021/AR/25) dated: 22nd January, 2025) (Guj)
The present appeal arose out of Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/50/2021 dated 6th September, 2021 – 2021-VIL-376-AAR.
The facts are that appellant, along with other six concessionaries entered into a Production Sharing Contract [PSC] with Timor Sea Designated Authority for undertaking exploration activities in Block JPDA 06-103 in the Joint Petroleum Development Area [JPDA].
JPDA is an area of Timor-Leste & Australia & the petroleum existing within JPDA is a resource exploited jointly by Governments of Timor-Leste and Australia.
Timor-Leste Government, initiated arbitration proceedings against Government of Australia to have certain Maritime Agreements in Timor Sea Treaty to be declared as void-ab-initio which will also result in termination of contract entered into by appellant. Therefore, appellant requested ANP ([Autoridade Nacional do Petroleo E Minerals] is Timor-Leste’s regulatory authority for oil, gas and mineral related activities; that this institution is vested with administrative and financial autonomy) for termination of the PSC by mutual agreement. ANP, issued a notice of intention to terminate PSC to the operator. ANP, thereafter, terminated the PSC with a demand of payment of estimated cost of exploration not carried out & damages for breach of its local content obligations in terms of article 4.5(a)(iii) of PSC.
The appellant has to pay proportionate sum, along with other concessionaries, to ANP.
In view of the foregoing facts, the appellant sought Advance Ruling on the following question, viz;
“Whether payment of settlement fees against demand made by ANP vide letter dated 15th July, 2015 attract levy of GST under GST regulations.”
The ld. AAR held that the transaction was liable to GST on RCM basis, considering it as import of Services from ANP of ‘tolerating an act’.
Before ld. AAAR, appellant showed fallacy in the above ruling, on following counts.
“*the payment to ANP is on account of breach of condition of production sharing contract;
* that the production sharing contract is for a block in JPDA which is in non-taxable territory;
* that the amount payable by the appellant to ANP is for a period prior to GST regime;
* that the production sharing contract is not akin to a service contract.”
Before arriving at a decision, the ld. AAAR referred to terms in contract and background in detail and also circular 178/10/2022-GST dated 3rd August, 2022.
The ld. AAAR observed as under:
“20. As is evident in this case liquidated damages are paid only to compensate for loss due to breach of PSC in terms of clause 4.5(a)(iii). We have not been in a position to pinpoint any agreement, express or implied between ANP and the six concessionaire that on receiving the liquidated damages, ANP will refrain from or tolerate an act or do an act for the concessionaires [including the appellant] paying the liquidated damages. This being the factual matrix, the liquidated damages, in terms of the aforementioned circular are merely a flow of money and such payments do not constitute consideration for a supply and hence, are not taxable. On going through the documents produced before us, it is difficult to establish that the impugned payments constitute consideration for another independent contract envisaging tolerating an act or situation or refraining from doing any act or situation or simply doing an act. Nonetheless, we also find that the impugned ruling dated 6th September, 2021 erred in holding that the settlement amount [liquidated damages] is not due to breach in PSC but due to ANPs obligation to supply services to the appellant.”
In view of above, the ld. AAAR allowed the appeal, thereby reversing the AR.