The frequent-change problem in GST
GST is statutorily young (effective July 2017) and rule-changes are frequent — rate amendments, classification clarifications, ITC restriction notifications, e-invoicing rollouts. The September 2025 rate rationalisation alone moved hundreds of products into new slabs. For ongoing operations and one-off transactions, opinions are needed where:
- Goods / services classification has multiple plausible interpretations.
- The transaction has cross-border elements (place of supply, export determination).
- ITC eligibility hinges on facts that haven’t been litigated.
- Reverse charge applicability is unclear.
- Anti-profiteering proceedings are pending.
The questions we write opinions on
- Classification — right HSN / SAC for novel products; mixed supply vs composite supply.
- Place of supply — Section 13 of IGST Act for cross-border services; immovable property vs. movable.
- Export of services — Section 2(6) of IGST Act; recipient-outside-India and consideration-in-foreign-currency tests.
- Intermediary — Section 13(8)(b) and the line between principal-to-principal vs facilitation.
- OIDAR — Online Information and Database Access Retrieval services.
- ITC eligibility — Section 17 blocked credits, capital-goods rules, common-input apportionment.
- Reverse charge — Notifications 13/2017-CT and 10/2017-IGST; intra-group cross-charges.
- Anti-profiteering — Section 171, NAA / GSTAT proceedings.
- SEZ supplies — LUT vs IGST refund route.
- E-invoicing — threshold applicability, exemption categories.
The structure & citation base
Same structure as direct-tax opinions: facts, issues, statutory analysis, case-law (advance rulings, AAAR, courts), conclusion, caveats. Citations include Notifications, Circulars, Press Releases and AAR pronouncements — in addition to statutory provisions.
Advance ruling under Section 95
For high-stakes positions, an Advance Ruling under Section 95 of CGST Act provides binding clarity from the AAR / AAAR. We support clients through:
- Application drafting (Form GST ARA-01).
- Hearing representation.
- Appeal to AAAR if needed.
- Implementation of the ruling.
An AAR ruling is binding on the applicant and the jurisdictional officer for the specific transaction — not on others.
How we research, write & defend
- Issue scoping — precise question, transaction context.
- Statutory + advance-ruling research — AAR / AAAR / High Court decisions.
- Cross-jurisdiction comparison — same issue across states.
- Analysis & conclusion.
- Partner review before issuance.
- Discussion call with the client.
- Final opinion with citations.
- AAR application if recommended.
How long & how we charge
Standard opinion: 2–4 weeks. AAR application + hearing: 4–6 months end-to-end (department-driven). Fee scoped at engagement start.
Common questions on indirect-tax opinions
Are AAR rulings binding nationwide?
No — binding only on the applicant and the jurisdictional officer in that state. Different states can rule differently on the same issue, which is why our research covers multi-state precedent.
Will the opinion shield us from interest and penalty?
Penalty exposure is materially reduced where reliance on a written professional opinion is documented. Interest under Section 50 still applies on under-payment.
Does the opinion cover GSTR-9 / 9C reconciliation issues?
Yes — reconciliation-driven opinions are common, especially for complex turnover or ITC bridges.
Can you help with the November 2025 rate rationalisation impact?
Yes. We’ve been doing rate-impact opinions across textiles, food processing, healthcare and IT-services since the announcement.
Talk to a partner.
A 30-minute call with a partner — no deck, no follow-up email blasts. Just a read on whether we’re the right team to issue your written indirect-tax opinion.