<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2018 (11) TMI 712 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, ODISHA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370369</link>
    <description>Services supplied under the ICT project did not qualify for GST exemption under Entry No. 72 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) and the corresponding Odisha notification because the contract was entered into with Odisha Knowledge Corporation Limited, a separate body corporate, rather than with the Government or its administration. The supply comprised a composite arrangement of site preparation, hardware and software supply and installation, maintenance, commissioning and computer education services, and the training element was only one component of that wider supply. The Authority also found that payment was contractually due from OKCL, so ultimate Government funding did not satisfy the statutory requirement that the expenditure be borne by the Government. Strict construction of exemption provisions led to rejection of the exemption claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2025 14:10:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=542125" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 712 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, ODISHA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370369</link>
      <description>Services supplied under the ICT project did not qualify for GST exemption under Entry No. 72 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) and the corresponding Odisha notification because the contract was entered into with Odisha Knowledge Corporation Limited, a separate body corporate, rather than with the Government or its administration. The supply comprised a composite arrangement of site preparation, hardware and software supply and installation, maintenance, commissioning and computer education services, and the training element was only one component of that wider supply. The Authority also found that payment was contractually due from OKCL, so ultimate Government funding did not satisfy the statutory requirement that the expenditure be borne by the Government. Strict construction of exemption provisions led to rejection of the exemption claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370369</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>