https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782157 AAR held that the applicant's share of fees received from skill training partners and from its own institutes is liable to GST and does not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate). Exemption under Entry 69 was denied as the outsourced training institutes were not shown to be NSDC/SSC approved, nor were the courses linked to NSDC/NSQF-aligned schemes. Exemption under Entry 66 was refused as the applicant's institutes did not qualify as "educational institutions," and Entry 4 was inapplicable. On ITC, AAR declined a conclusive ruling due to lack of factual details but clarified that ITC is not barred merely because inputs are funded by government grants, provided Section 16 conditions are satisfied. en-us Wed, 27 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:09:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782157 AAR held that the applicant's share of fees received from skill training partners and from its own institutes is liable to GST and does not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate). Exemption under Entry 69 was denied as the outsourced training institutes were not shown to be NSDC/SSC approved, nor were the courses linked to NSDC/NSQF-aligned schemes. Exemption under Entry 66 was refused as the applicant's institutes did not qualify as "educational institutions," and Entry 4 was inapplicable. On ITC, AAR declined a conclusive ruling due to lack of factual details but clarified that ITC is not barred merely because inputs are funded by government grants, provided Section 16 conditions are satisfied. Case-Laws GST Wed, 27 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782157