Page 124 - GSTL_23rd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 4
P. 124

450                           GST LAW TIMES                      [ Vol. 35
                                     formulae described in any authoritative book of Ayurveda specified in the First
                                     Schedule of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. It does not claim that the persons
                                     administering the plant-based preparations are ‘authorised medical practitioners’
                                     in Ayurveda within the meaning of Para No. 2(k) of the Exemption Notification.
                                     The Applicant has not clarified whether these persons possess the medical quali-
                                     fication included in the Second Schedule of the Indian Medicine Central Council
                                     Act, 1970 and registered under the said Act as medical practitioners.
                                            4.8  Under the circumstances, this  Authority cannot accept the  Appli-
                                     cant’s claim that it is a clinical establishment offering treatment in the recognised
                                     ayurvedic system of medicine. Its supplies are not, therefore, health care service
                                     by a clinical establishment, as defined under Para No. 2(s) of the Exemption No-
                                     tification. Applicant’s supply is, therefore, not exempt under Entry No. 74 of the
                                     Exemption Notification. It needs to remain registered, as its liability to pay GST
                                     does not cease.
                                            5.  Based on the discussion above, we rule as under :
                                                                     RULING
                                            6.  The Applicant’s supply is not exempt under Entry No. 74 of the Ex-
                                     emption Notification. It, therefore, needs to remain registered, as its liability to
                                     pay GST does not cease.
                                            7.  This Ruling is valid subject to the provisions under Section 103 until
                                     and unless declared void under Section 104(1) of the GST Act.

                                                                     _______

                                              2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 450 (A.A.R. - GST - Kar.)
                                         BEFORE THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING UNDER GST,
                                                                  KARNATAKA
                                        S/Shri Ravi Prasad M.P., Member (SGST) and Mashhood ur Rehman
                                                            Farooqui, Member (CGST)
                                                IN RE : WATER HEALTH INDIA PVT. LTD.
                                               Advance Ruling No. KAR ADRG 12/2020, dated 18-3-2020
                                            Water - Purified drinking water supplied to public in empty unsealed
                                     cans - Word “and” used before the ‘Water sold in sealed container’ in Sl. No.
                                     99 of Notification No. 2/2017-C.T. (Rate) is disjunctive in nature and lays down
                                     that ‘water sold in a sealed container’ is another type of water excluded from
                                     the said  entry along with aerated water, mineral  water, purified water, dis-
                                     tilled water, medicinal water, ionic water, battery water, de-mineralized water
                                     - Supply of purified water whether in sealed container or unsealed container
                                     not entitled for GST exemption as purified water excluded from the Sl. No. 99
                                     of Notification No. 2/2017-C.T. (Rate). [para 19]
                                                                                Ruling in favour of department
                                                                  CASES CITED
                                     S.G. Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector — 1994 (74) E.L.T. 775 (S.C.) — Relied on ........................ [Para 17]
                                     Sukhnandan v. Suraj Bali — Relied on .......................................................................................... [Paras 6.2, 18]

                                                          GST LAW TIMES      23rd April 2020      244
   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129