<?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 (3) TMI 411 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, WEST BENGAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393267</link>
    <description>A composite printing contract was treated as a taxable supply in India rather than an export of service because the printing element was predominant and the printed booklets had no independent utility apart from the supplied content. For place-of-supply purposes, the statutory definition of &quot;recipient&quot; was applied so that the person liable to pay consideration and the person to whom the supply was made were not treated as severable; on that basis, the recipient was regarded as located in India. As delivery of the printed booklets was made in India, the place of supply was India and the transaction did not meet the conditions for export of services. The supply was therefore taxable under the applicable rate notifications.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2025 12:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=606379" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (3) TMI 411 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, WEST BENGAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393267</link>
      <description>A composite printing contract was treated as a taxable supply in India rather than an export of service because the printing element was predominant and the printed booklets had no independent utility apart from the supplied content. For place-of-supply purposes, the statutory definition of &quot;recipient&quot; was applied so that the person liable to pay consideration and the person to whom the supply was made were not treated as severable; on that basis, the recipient was regarded as located in India. As delivery of the printed booklets was made in India, the place of supply was India and the transaction did not meet the conditions for export of services. The supply was therefore taxable under the applicable rate notifications.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393267</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>