<?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>2023 (12) TMI 723 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447039</link>
    <description>Recovery of subsidised canteen charges from employees constitutes consideration for a taxable supply of service under GST where the employment arrangement expressly provides for such recovery. The canteen facility, though maintained to meet the employer&#039;s statutory obligation under the Factories Act, remained an activity in furtherance of business, and food supplied for valuable consideration fell within the supply framework in Schedule II. The exemption for employee perquisites did not apply because the facility was not free of cost. The pure agent argument also failed for the third-party operated model, as the employees had not authorised the employer to act as their agent. GST was therefore payable on the recovered amount in both canteen models.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2025 14:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=735414" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (12) TMI 723 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447039</link>
      <description>Recovery of subsidised canteen charges from employees constitutes consideration for a taxable supply of service under GST where the employment arrangement expressly provides for such recovery. The canteen facility, though maintained to meet the employer&#039;s statutory obligation under the Factories Act, remained an activity in furtherance of business, and food supplied for valuable consideration fell within the supply framework in Schedule II. The exemption for employee perquisites did not apply because the facility was not free of cost. The pure agent argument also failed for the third-party operated model, as the employees had not authorised the employer to act as their agent. GST was therefore payable on the recovered amount in both canteen models.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447039</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>