<?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 618 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MADHYA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393474</link>
    <description>The ruling held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) of GST paid on goods and services for warehouse construction and maintenance is not admissible under Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act 2017. The Authority rejected the applicant&#039;s arguments on double taxation and lack of competitiveness, emphasizing the clear provisions of the law. The decision is subject to provisions under section 103(2) unless declared void under Section 104(1) of the GST Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2025 16:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=606985" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (3) TMI 618 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MADHYA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393474</link>
      <description>The ruling held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) of GST paid on goods and services for warehouse construction and maintenance is not admissible under Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act 2017. The Authority rejected the applicant&#039;s arguments on double taxation and lack of competitiveness, emphasizing the clear provisions of the law. The decision is subject to provisions under section 103(2) unless declared void under Section 104(1) of the GST Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393474</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>