<?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>2020 (2) TMI 536 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392092</link>
    <description>The application for an advance ruling regarding the refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC) based on hard copies of shipping bills not traceable on the ICEGATE website was rejected as non-maintainable, as the query was deemed technical/procedural and outside the scope of matters specified in Section 97(2) of the CGST Act. Additionally, the determination that drop-shipping transactions do not constitute export sales subject to IGST was upheld, as the applicant&#039;s role as an intermediary did not involve direct sales of goods. The application was rejected under Section 95 of the CGST Act due to the absence of a supply of goods by the applicant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2025 12:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=603718" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (2) TMI 536 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392092</link>
      <description>The application for an advance ruling regarding the refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC) based on hard copies of shipping bills not traceable on the ICEGATE website was rejected as non-maintainable, as the query was deemed technical/procedural and outside the scope of matters specified in Section 97(2) of the CGST Act. Additionally, the determination that drop-shipping transactions do not constitute export sales subject to IGST was upheld, as the applicant&#039;s role as an intermediary did not involve direct sales of goods. The application was rejected under Section 95 of the CGST Act due to the absence of a supply of goods by the applicant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392092</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>