<?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 (5) TMI 217 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395184</link>
    <description>The application regarding the liability of a cooperative marketing society for tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism as an auctioneer for agricultural produce was rejected. The society argued its services were exempt and acted as a pure agent, citing relevant laws. State authorities viewed the society as an auctioneer, while the central authority held it liable for GST under Reverse Charge Mechanism. Ongoing investigations against the society were mentioned, and the application was not admitted due to pending issues before the tax authorities. The rejection was based on the first proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST/TNGST Act 2017.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 May 2020 11:17:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=612544" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (5) TMI 217 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395184</link>
      <description>The application regarding the liability of a cooperative marketing society for tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism as an auctioneer for agricultural produce was rejected. The society argued its services were exempt and acted as a pure agent, citing relevant laws. State authorities viewed the society as an auctioneer, while the central authority held it liable for GST under Reverse Charge Mechanism. Ongoing investigations against the society were mentioned, and the application was not admitted due to pending issues before the tax authorities. The rejection was based on the first proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST/TNGST Act 2017.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395184</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>