Every ruling, in plain sight

Rakesh Kumar Singh, In re

In favour of the revenue

Rakesh Kumar Singh, a Kolkata trader in dried and cured tobacco leaves, applied to the West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (Order No. 09/WBAAR/2026-27, 1 September 2026) for classification and GST rate on unmanufactured tobacco, including whether the supply was exempt agricultural produce. Revenue pointed to prior Section 129 enforcement in June 2025, where intercepted goods were held to be unmanufactured tobacco taxable at 28%, contrary to documents showing 5%, and the applicant had admitted the infringement and paid IGST penalty. The Authority examined Section 98(2) CGST and its first proviso, which bars admitting an advance ruling where the same question is already pending or decided in proceedings against the applicant under the Act. After multiple hearing opportunities, the application was rejected as inadmissible rather than ruled on merits. Outcome favoured revenue in the sense that no favourable ruling was issued; the bar under Section 98(2) applied. This is a procedural precedent on repeat questions after enforcement, not tax advice.

Chehar Industry (P.) Ltd., In re

Chehar Industry (P.) Ltd. approached the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (4 August 2026) as a manufacturer-trader of bar- or cake-form laundry soaps used for washing clothes and textiles, seeking correct HSN classification and GST rate. The bench (Members Malani and Vora) distinguished these products from toilet soaps by composition and end use. It held them classifiable as laundry soaps under sub-heading 34011 and taxable at 18% under Entry No. 66 of Schedule-II to Notification No. 09/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17 September 2025, read with Sections 9 and 10 CGST on levy and composition where relevant. The ruling gives CAs a clear product-based line between laundry and toilet soap categories for rate purposes. Facts are limited to the applicant’s stated manufacturing pattern; other formulations may need separate rulings.

S.K. Swamy and Company, In re

In favour of the revenue

S.K. Swamy and Company, a registered Karnataka partnership, sought an advance ruling (Order KAR.ADRG/42/2026, 29 July 2026) on whether its activity of supplying ballast and loading it into Railway wagons using JCB loaders constituted a works contract under GST. The Karnataka AAR (Members Rama Rao and Itagi) found no building, construction, erection, or work connected with immovable property; the engagement was essentially supply and loading of goods for rail transport. Accordingly the arrangement could not be classified as a works contract under the statutory definition in Section 2 CGST, with implications for tax treatment under Sections 8 and 9. Outcome favoured revenue’s view that works-contract classification was unavailable. Contractors performing similar loading-only services should analyse immovable-property nexus separately; this summary is not legal advice.

Indian Wire Products Company, In re

In favour of the revenue

On appeal, the West Bengal Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (Appeal Case No. 02/WBAAAR/APPEAL/2026, 10 July 2026) considered Indian Wire Products Company’s restaurant model involving supply of tobacco-based and herbal hookah flavours through hookah apparatus alongside food and beverages. The issue was whether such supplies were composite restaurant service under paragraph 6(b) of Schedule II and Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate), or separate supplies of goods. The AAAR held that merely bundling hookah flavours with restaurant facilities did not bring those flavour supplies within the restaurant service entry; they remained supplies of goods to be classified and rated under applicable goods notifications, with Sections 7, 8 and 9 CGST governing scope and levy. Outcome favoured revenue’s characterisation as non-restaurant service supplies. Operators mixing hookah retail with dining should treat flavour supplies as goods unless facts differ materially.