In re Puranik Builders Ltd. (GST AAR Maharashtra)
‘Construction services’ and the ‘other services’ provided by the applicant are not naturally bundled and are not supplied in conjunction with each other in the ordinary course of business with main supply. These are the facilities/amenties provided by the applicant to its customers for the limited period because, for these facilities created the customers have not been given perpetual rights as per the said agreement (please refer to clauses cited supra). The amount or consideration is charged sepereately for different services. And even the stamp duty is also not paid on full amount collected from the customer along with the said other charges. Therefore, the other charges for the other services provided is not covered under the scope of ‘Composite supply of services’. Therefore, the contention of the applicant is found not acceptable.
Source Taxguru
Latest Posts in "India"
- Tripura HC: ITC Cannot Be Denied to Bona Fide Purchaser for Supplier’s Tax Default
- Ready-to-Drink Non-Alcoholic Beverages Like Mojito to Attract 40% GST, Rules WB AAR
- Bombay HC: Assignment of Long-Term Industrial Leasehold Rights Not Taxable as ‘Supply’ Under GST
- ITC Not Allowed on Mall Construction for Leasing, Rules Tamil Nadu AAR under GST Law
- Section 74 Cannot Be Invoked for GST Return Mismatches Without Evidence of Fraud or Suppression
