<?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>2026 (2) TMI 646 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786498</link>
    <description>Construction of residential houses in a real estate project commencing after 01-04-2019 was treated as a composite supply of service under Schedule II, and the amended real estate rate entries applied to the project. The applicant was therefore liable only under the concessional entries for residential apartments, at 1.5% for affordable units and 7.5% for other residential units, subject to the prescribed conditions; the claim for 18% GST only on the construction component was rejected. For valuation, the special notification required land to be deemed at one-third of the total amount charged, and that mandatory abatement could not be replaced by the actual land value shown in the sale deed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2026 15:48:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=886158" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (2) TMI 646 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786498</link>
      <description>Construction of residential houses in a real estate project commencing after 01-04-2019 was treated as a composite supply of service under Schedule II, and the amended real estate rate entries applied to the project. The applicant was therefore liable only under the concessional entries for residential apartments, at 1.5% for affordable units and 7.5% for other residential units, subject to the prescribed conditions; the claim for 18% GST only on the construction component was rejected. For valuation, the special notification required land to be deemed at one-third of the total amount charged, and that mandatory abatement could not be replaced by the actual land value shown in the sale deed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786498</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>