/** * The main template file * * This is the most generic template file in a WordPress theme * and one of the two required files for a theme (the other being style.css). * It is used to display a page when nothing more specific matches a query. * E.g., it puts together the home page when no home.php file exists. * * @link https://developer.wordpress.org/themes/basics/template-hierarchy/ * * @package WordPress * @subpackage Tally * @since 1.0.0 */ ?>
The AAR, Madhya Pradesh in the matter of M/S. Mohammad Arif Mohammad Latif (Advance Ruling Order No. 03/2021 dated June 17, 2021) held that, that mere acceptance of joint custody of goods without rights, privileges of ownership of goods does not amount to supply.
M/s. Mohammad Arif Mohammad Latif (“the Applicant”) is engaged, inter alia, in purchase of Tendupatta (“the Goods”) from the MP State Minor Forest Produce (Trading and Development) Cooperative Federation Limited (“the Federation”) for the purpose of trading of the Goods and the Applicant is required to pay for the lots of the Goods in instalments and obtain the Goods from the Federation to complete the sale and till that time it was to be kept in the godown of the Federation in joint custody. Further, the Goods were insured by the Federation. The insurance was obtained at the cost of the successful bidder in the joint name of the Federation and the Applicant.
Due to a fire in the godown of the Federation, the Goods stored were destroyed and could not ultimately be delivered to the Applicant. Upon the fire, the claim for insurance was filed and the insurance proceeds were received by the Federation.
Thereafter, the Federation directed the Applicant to pay for the subsequent installments for the Goods that was destroyed in the fire, after appropriating the security deposit and adjusting the claim received from the insurance company while computing the amount to be paid by the Applicant, the Federation added GST, treating the goods destroyed in the fire to have been supplied in terms of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”).
The Hon’ble AAR, Madhya Pradesh in Advance Ruling Order No. 03/2021 dated June 17, 2021 held as under:
(Author can be reached at email@example.com)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
The AAR, Gujarat in the matter of M/S. Adama India Private Limited [Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/44/2021 dated August 11, 2021] held that, no Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) would be available for Corporate
The AAR, Maharashtra in the matter of M/s. Indiana Engineering Works (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. [Advance Ruling No. GST-ARA-120/2019-20/B-114 dated December 16, 2021] held that, GST payable on electricity
The Hon’ble Finance Minister, in Union Budget 2021-22, proposed changes vide the Finance Bill, 2021, that amends the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”) with respect to provision
The Hon’ble Finance Minister, in Budget 2021-22, proposed changes vide the Finance Bill, 2021, that amends the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”) with respect to amendments
The Hon’ble Finance Minister, in Union Budget 2021-22, proposed changes vide the Finance Bill, 2021, that amends the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”) with respect to recovery