https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294046 The case involved determining the time and value of supply for 'Deposit Works' under GST. The applicant argued that funds received for 'Deposit Works' should be treated as deposits, while the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) concluded that they are advance payments. The AAR ruled that the time of supply for 'Deposit Works' is the time of receipt of funds, and the value of supply is the amount of advance received for the specific work. The ruling is subject to provisions under Section 103(2) unless declared void under Section 104(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. en-us Fri, 13 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Mar 2021 09:09:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294046 The case involved determining the time and value of supply for 'Deposit Works' under GST. The applicant argued that funds received for 'Deposit Works' should be treated as deposits, while the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) concluded that they are advance payments. The AAR ruled that the time of supply for 'Deposit Works' is the time of receipt of funds, and the value of supply is the amount of advance received for the specific work. The ruling is subject to provisions under Section 103(2) unless declared void under Section 104(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Case-Laws GST Fri, 13 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294046