<?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 (3) TMI 1673 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, UTTARAKHAND</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788918</link>
    <description>Contractual operation and management of Government Urban Health &amp; Wellness Centres and Polyclinics was not exempt as healthcare services under Entry 74 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), because the supply was administrative and operational support to the executing agency, not healthcare service rendered by the applicant to the recipient of consideration. The fact that the centres were registered as clinical establishments did not alter the nature of the supply. The same activity also failed to qualify as pure services under Entry 3, since the applicant supplied services to the main contractor rather than directly to the State Government, and the arrangement involved composite inputs including manpower and infrastructure. The services remained taxable under GST.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2026 08:27:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=893872" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 1673 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, UTTARAKHAND</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788918</link>
      <description>Contractual operation and management of Government Urban Health &amp; Wellness Centres and Polyclinics was not exempt as healthcare services under Entry 74 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), because the supply was administrative and operational support to the executing agency, not healthcare service rendered by the applicant to the recipient of consideration. The fact that the centres were registered as clinical establishments did not alter the nature of the supply. The same activity also failed to qualify as pure services under Entry 3, since the applicant supplied services to the main contractor rather than directly to the State Government, and the arrangement involved composite inputs including manpower and infrastructure. The services remained taxable under GST.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788918</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>