<?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 (3) TMI 1344 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301208</link>
    <description>The AAAR held that the appellant&#039;s multiple activities including construction and training services constituted a composite supply under Section 2(30) of CGST Act, 2017, with training services as the principal supply. The training services provided to apprentices, unskilled workers, and students on behalf of the German principal were classified under SAC 999294 as performance-based services. Since services were performed at appellant&#039;s Indian premises, the place of supply was determined to be in India under Section 13(3)(b) of IGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the supply did not qualify as export of services or zero-rated supply as it failed to meet the requirement that place of supply be outside India under Section 2(6) of IGST Act, 2017.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Mar 2025 12:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=673331" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (3) TMI 1344 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301208</link>
      <description>The AAAR held that the appellant&#039;s multiple activities including construction and training services constituted a composite supply under Section 2(30) of CGST Act, 2017, with training services as the principal supply. The training services provided to apprentices, unskilled workers, and students on behalf of the German principal were classified under SAC 999294 as performance-based services. Since services were performed at appellant&#039;s Indian premises, the place of supply was determined to be in India under Section 13(3)(b) of IGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the supply did not qualify as export of services or zero-rated supply as it failed to meet the requirement that place of supply be outside India under Section 2(6) of IGST Act, 2017.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301208</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>