<?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>2019 (7) TMI 1000 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383304</link>
    <description>A contingent contractual right to receive money from shareholders on a strategic sale or IPO, triggered only if the stipulated threshold is met, was treated as a beneficial interest in movable property enforceable on the specified event and therefore an actionable claim under the CGST Act read with the Transfer of Property Act. Because actionable claims other than lottery, betting and gambling are neither supply of goods nor supply of services under Schedule III, the profit-sharing arrangement fell outside the GST levy. The ruling also noted that the payment obligation rested on the shareholders, not the employer company, so the arrangement was not a service by an employee to an employer in the course of employment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Feb 2025 15:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=580241" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 1000 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383304</link>
      <description>A contingent contractual right to receive money from shareholders on a strategic sale or IPO, triggered only if the stipulated threshold is met, was treated as a beneficial interest in movable property enforceable on the specified event and therefore an actionable claim under the CGST Act read with the Transfer of Property Act. Because actionable claims other than lottery, betting and gambling are neither supply of goods nor supply of services under Schedule III, the profit-sharing arrangement fell outside the GST levy. The ruling also noted that the payment obligation rested on the shareholders, not the employer company, so the arrangement was not a service by an employee to an employer in the course of employment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383304</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>