Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of AAR held that services rendered by the applicant to the recipient-society are not exempt under Entry 72 of Notif. No. 12/2017-CT (Rate) because the recipient, though under administrative control and funding of the State, is a separate legal entity registered as a society and cannot be treated as the Central/State Government or a Government Department. It may at best qualify as a Governmental Authority/Entity, but the training, skill development and capacity-building services supplied do not fall within the limited categories exempted under Entry 3B of Notif. No. 13/2023-CT (Rate). Consequently, the supplies are taxable. As a corollary, AAR held the applicant is entitled to full ITC on GST charged by subcontractors for such services, subject to satisfaction of statutory conditions under the CGST Act and Rules.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
