https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419447 AAR Odisha held that the transaction between the applicant and contractor did not constitute job work under section 2(68) of CGST Act and OGST Act 2017. The production plant was leased to the applicant on monthly rent basis with physical possession transferred. The contractor manufactured industrial gases using applicant's raw materials but operated from applicant's premises under lease arrangement. Since no specific job work agreement existed, no processing charges were claimed, and manufacturing occurred at applicant's plant rather than contractor's facility, the transaction failed to meet job work criteria under section 143. Consequently, GST treatment applicable to job work was not maintainable for payments under the contract. en-us Wed, 15 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Apr 2025 12:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419447 AAR Odisha held that the transaction between the applicant and contractor did not constitute job work under section 2(68) of CGST Act and OGST Act 2017. The production plant was leased to the applicant on monthly rent basis with physical possession transferred. The contractor manufactured industrial gases using applicant's raw materials but operated from applicant's premises under lease arrangement. Since no specific job work agreement existed, no processing charges were claimed, and manufacturing occurred at applicant's plant rather than contractor's facility, the transaction failed to meet job work criteria under section 143. Consequently, GST treatment applicable to job work was not maintainable for payments under the contract. Case-Laws GST Wed, 15 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419447