<?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>2018 (11) TMI 1825 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, HARYANA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293268</link>
    <description>The Applicant was found not eligible for exemption from CGST/SGST on freight charges under the fifth contract, as the activities involved in the contract were considered a composite supply. The judgment ruled that GST applied to the composite supply activities, and compliance with GST regulations as per Section 8 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, was mandated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Feb 2025 15:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=635205" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 1825 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, HARYANA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293268</link>
      <description>The Applicant was found not eligible for exemption from CGST/SGST on freight charges under the fifth contract, as the activities involved in the contract were considered a composite supply. The judgment ruled that GST applied to the composite supply activities, and compliance with GST regulations as per Section 8 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, was mandated.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293268</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>