<?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 (6) TMI 166 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792785</link>
    <description>A DBFOT road concession under which the concessionaire undertakes construction, operation and maintenance, receives an exclusive right to collect toll, and pays premium or concession fee was treated as a taxable supply of works contract services under GST because the reciprocal rights and obligations formed consideration other than money. The road-access toll exemption was held to apply only to services under Heading 9967 and not to road construction under Heading 9954, so it did not cover the construction element. The challenge based on double taxation and parity with other departmental decisions also failed, as those references involved different contracts and issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2026 08:50:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=905141" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 166 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792785</link>
      <description>A DBFOT road concession under which the concessionaire undertakes construction, operation and maintenance, receives an exclusive right to collect toll, and pays premium or concession fee was treated as a taxable supply of works contract services under GST because the reciprocal rights and obligations formed consideration other than money. The road-access toll exemption was held to apply only to services under Heading 9967 and not to road construction under Heading 9954, so it did not cover the construction element. The challenge based on double taxation and parity with other departmental decisions also failed, as those references involved different contracts and issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792785</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>