https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756430 The AAAR ruled that the applicant's activities did not constitute a composite supply under GST law. The authority held that the applicant made distinct supplies to two different recipients - farmers and the contracting entity - rather than bundled supplies to a single recipient as required for composite supply classification. The agreement between parties was found to be principal-to-principal basis without agency relationship or joint venture. The applicant's engagement with farmers was solely to obtain carbon credits for transfer to the contracting entity. Since supplies were made to multiple recipients as separate transactions, they could not be categorized as composite supply under Section 2(30) of CGST/SGST Acts, making the question of principal supply irrelevant. en-us Wed, 24 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 May 2025 16:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756430 The AAAR ruled that the applicant's activities did not constitute a composite supply under GST law. The authority held that the applicant made distinct supplies to two different recipients - farmers and the contracting entity - rather than bundled supplies to a single recipient as required for composite supply classification. The agreement between parties was found to be principal-to-principal basis without agency relationship or joint venture. The applicant's engagement with farmers was solely to obtain carbon credits for transfer to the contracting entity. Since supplies were made to multiple recipients as separate transactions, they could not be categorized as composite supply under Section 2(30) of CGST/SGST Acts, making the question of principal supply irrelevant. Case-Laws GST Wed, 24 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756430