https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302260 The appellant's claim of acting as a "pure agent" when recovering electricity expenses from the lessee was dismissed. The court held that the appellant did not meet the conditions under Rule 33 of the CGST Rules, 2017, to qualify as a pure agent. Additionally, the method of collecting electricity expenses in advance with the rent did not constitute actual reimbursement, leading to the inclusion of these expenses in the taxable value. The appeal was consequently dismissed, affirming that the reimbursement of electricity expenses formed part of the taxable value under the CGST Act, 2017. en-us Sun, 17 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Mar 2025 18:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302260 The appellant's claim of acting as a "pure agent" when recovering electricity expenses from the lessee was dismissed. The court held that the appellant did not meet the conditions under Rule 33 of the CGST Rules, 2017, to qualify as a pure agent. Additionally, the method of collecting electricity expenses in advance with the rent did not constitute actual reimbursement, leading to the inclusion of these expenses in the taxable value. The appeal was consequently dismissed, affirming that the reimbursement of electricity expenses formed part of the taxable value under the CGST Act, 2017. Case-Laws GST Sun, 17 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302260