https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284672 The Divisional Forest Officer sought an advance ruling on the applicability of GST for activities related to timber and bamboo extraction, transportation to government depots, and maintenance works. The Authority for Advance Ruling determined that the applicant was not making supplies but receiving services from contractors. As the questions were about tax liability on services received, not supplies made, the application was rejected under Section 98 of the CGST and APGST Acts. The ruling clarifies the distinction between tax liability on services received and supplies made, providing insights into GST application in the forestry sector. en-us Fri, 28 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Feb 2025 10:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284672 The Divisional Forest Officer sought an advance ruling on the applicability of GST for activities related to timber and bamboo extraction, transportation to government depots, and maintenance works. The Authority for Advance Ruling determined that the applicant was not making supplies but receiving services from contractors. As the questions were about tax liability on services received, not supplies made, the application was rejected under Section 98 of the CGST and APGST Acts. The ruling clarifies the distinction between tax liability on services received and supplies made, providing insights into GST application in the forestry sector. Case-Laws GST Fri, 28 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284672