<?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 (12) TMI 190 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, WEST BENGAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401391</link>
    <description>A contract for fabrication of steel structures, incidental paint supply, transport and post-erection painting was treated as a mixed supply because the fabrication and delivery component and the later painting component were not naturally bundled. Fabrication on goods supplied by another registered person fell within job work and was treated as manufacturing service supplied to a registered taxable person. The final coat of paint, applied only after erection, was a separate works contract element. As the supplies were combined for a single consideration but remained distinct in character, the composite arrangement was taxable at 12% on the basis stated in the ruling.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2025 16:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=629507" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (12) TMI 190 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, WEST BENGAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401391</link>
      <description>A contract for fabrication of steel structures, incidental paint supply, transport and post-erection painting was treated as a mixed supply because the fabrication and delivery component and the later painting component were not naturally bundled. Fabrication on goods supplied by another registered person fell within job work and was treated as manufacturing service supplied to a registered taxable person. The final coat of paint, applied only after erection, was a separate works contract element. As the supplies were combined for a single consideration but remained distinct in character, the composite arrangement was taxable at 12% on the basis stated in the ruling.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401391</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>