<?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>2021 (8) TMI 187 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410609</link>
    <description>The ruling in this case determined that the National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli (NITT) is considered a Government Entity under GST Law. As a Government entity, NITT is obligated to deduct tax at source (TDS) under Section 51 of the CGST Act, 2017. Additionally, NITT is required to discharge liability on a reverse charge basis for legal services received, while for security services provided by a body corporate, the reverse charge mechanism does not apply. The questions regarding the applicability of specific notifications were deemed inadmissible as the applicant was the recipient of services, not the service provider.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Jan 2022 13:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=651673" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (8) TMI 187 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410609</link>
      <description>The ruling in this case determined that the National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli (NITT) is considered a Government Entity under GST Law. As a Government entity, NITT is obligated to deduct tax at source (TDS) under Section 51 of the CGST Act, 2017. Additionally, NITT is required to discharge liability on a reverse charge basis for legal services received, while for security services provided by a body corporate, the reverse charge mechanism does not apply. The questions regarding the applicability of specific notifications were deemed inadmissible as the applicant was the recipient of services, not the service provider.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410609</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>