https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290503 The AAAR Maharashtra rejected the appellant's rectification application seeking to correct an alleged error apparent on record. The appellant argued the authority misinterpreted section 97(2)(e) of CGST Act, 2017 regarding intermediary services classification. The AAAR held that section 97(2)(e) grants jurisdiction to determine GST liability but not place of supply determination. Since there was a genuine dispute in legal interpretation of the provision leaving scope for argument and debate, no error apparent on record existed. The authority concluded the appellant's allegations lacked rationale and rejected the application. en-us Wed, 11 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Mar 2025 12:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290503 The AAAR Maharashtra rejected the appellant's rectification application seeking to correct an alleged error apparent on record. The appellant argued the authority misinterpreted section 97(2)(e) of CGST Act, 2017 regarding intermediary services classification. The AAAR held that section 97(2)(e) grants jurisdiction to determine GST liability but not place of supply determination. Since there was a genuine dispute in legal interpretation of the provision leaving scope for argument and debate, no error apparent on record existed. The authority concluded the appellant's allegations lacked rationale and rejected the application. Case-Laws GST Wed, 11 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290503