Case Details: DGAP vs. IJM Raintree Park (P.) Ltd. - [2026] 185 taxmann.com 102 (GSTAT-NEW DELHI)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Justice Mayank Kumar Jain, Judicial Member
Facts of the Case
The applicant filed an application for Advance Ruling to seek clarification on whether the GST would be applicable on the recovery of expenses from the employees. The applicant is a company engaged in the business of providing IT services to its clients. It incurs various expenses on behalf of its employees and recovers such expenses from its employees on a monthly basis.
AAR Held
The Authority for Advance Ruling, Maharashtra held that the recovery of expenses from the employees would be considered as a supply of services as the same is done in the course or furtherance of business and for a consideration in the form of deduction from the salary of the employees. Thus, the applicant was required to pay GST on the recovery of expenses from the employees.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Reckitt Benckiser India (P.) Ltd. v. UOI [2024] 158 taxmann.com 675/102 GST 495/82 GSTL 344 (Delhi) (para 68), followed
List of Cases Referred to
- Reckitt Benckiser India (P.) Ltd. v. UOI [2024] 158 taxmann.com 675/102 GST 495/82 GSTL 344 (Delhi) (para 7)
- DGAP v. Ireo (P.) Ltd. [Order No. NAPA/73/PB/2025, dated 28.10.2025] (para 18)
- Sudarshan Theatre v. UOI [2024] 164 taxmann.com 331/105 GST 418/88 GSTL 293 (Telangana) (para 24).
The post No Profiteering in Real Estate Where ITC Benefit Reduced Post-GST | GSTAT appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
