<?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 (5) TMI 340 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791138</link>
    <description>A welfare-oriented employee transportation facility arranged through a third-party transporter was held not to be a taxable supply under Section 7 of the CGST Act. The employer merely arranged transport and recovered only a nominal cost share from employees; the actual transportation service was supplied by the third-party transporter, not by the employer. Because the facility was optional, employee-specific, and not incidental or ancillary to the employer&#039;s core business, it was not regarded as provided in the course or furtherance of business. The authority also treated the facility as an employment perquisite, which falls outside GST. Accordingly, the nominal recovery did not constitute consideration for supply.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 08:32:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=900115" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 340 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, TAMILNADU</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791138</link>
      <description>A welfare-oriented employee transportation facility arranged through a third-party transporter was held not to be a taxable supply under Section 7 of the CGST Act. The employer merely arranged transport and recovered only a nominal cost share from employees; the actual transportation service was supplied by the third-party transporter, not by the employer. Because the facility was optional, employee-specific, and not incidental or ancillary to the employer&#039;s core business, it was not regarded as provided in the course or furtherance of business. The authority also treated the facility as an employment perquisite, which falls outside GST. Accordingly, the nominal recovery did not constitute consideration for supply.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791138</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>