https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396115 The case involved issues related to the classification of work contracts under GST, the distinction between operator and manpower under GST provisions, and the classification of special purpose vehicles as "Machinery" under GST. The authority ruled that the work undertaken by the applicant was classified as "Support Service to Mining" under HSN 998622, attracting GST at 18%. However, the questions regarding the difference between operator and manpower and the classification of special purpose vehicles were deemed beyond the authority's mandate, and no ruling was provided on these matters. en-us Thu, 14 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Mar 2025 15:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396115 The case involved issues related to the classification of work contracts under GST, the distinction between operator and manpower under GST provisions, and the classification of special purpose vehicles as "Machinery" under GST. The authority ruled that the work undertaken by the applicant was classified as "Support Service to Mining" under HSN 998622, attracting GST at 18%. However, the questions regarding the difference between operator and manpower and the classification of special purpose vehicles were deemed beyond the authority's mandate, and no ruling was provided on these matters. Case-Laws GST Thu, 14 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396115