https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396682 The case involved determining the liability and classification to pay GST on reimbursement received for Lost in Hole (LIH) equipment. The applicant argued that the reimbursement should be considered a supply of services under the CGST Act, either as "agreeing to tolerate an act" or a composite supply of works contract service. The Authority agreed that the reimbursement qualifies as a supply of services and falls under the broad definition of services. It was determined that the reimbursement for LIH equipment is a supply of goods and not a composite supply of works contract service. The ruling stated that the reimbursement is liable to GST and classifiable as a supply of goods based on the nature of the actual goods involved. en-us Wed, 13 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Nov 2020 11:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396682 The case involved determining the liability and classification to pay GST on reimbursement received for Lost in Hole (LIH) equipment. The applicant argued that the reimbursement should be considered a supply of services under the CGST Act, either as "agreeing to tolerate an act" or a composite supply of works contract service. The Authority agreed that the reimbursement qualifies as a supply of services and falls under the broad definition of services. It was determined that the reimbursement for LIH equipment is a supply of goods and not a composite supply of works contract service. The ruling stated that the reimbursement is liable to GST and classifiable as a supply of goods based on the nature of the actual goods involved. Case-Laws GST Wed, 13 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396682