9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 527X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 28.06.2017? At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provisions of both the COST Act and the MGST Act are the same except for certain provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically made to any dissimilar provisions, a reference to the CGST Act would also mean a reference to the same provision under the MGST Act. Further to the earlier, henceforth for the purposes of this Advance Ruling, the expression 'GST Act' would mean CGST Act and MGST Act. 2. FACTS AND CONTENTION - AS PER THE APPLICANT The submissions made by the applicant are as under:- 2.1 Apar Industries Ltd., the applicant, falling within the jurisdiction of Maharashtra State is a registered manufacturer and supplier of various types & grades of cables falling under Chapter Heading No. 8544 of Customs /GST Tariff. 2.2 Notification No. 01/2017- I.T. (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, classifies and groups goods into Six Schedules for the purpose of uniformity in levying and affixing rate of GST category-wise/schedule wise. All Goods of Schedule-I are categorized as 5% GST rated goods, wherein Sr.No. 250 and 252 refers to the following supply/goods - S.No. 250 The goods of Tariff Heading 8906, wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssional rate of GST is applicable in their case. 2.8. Applicant made further submissions on 13.11.2019 as under - 2.8.1 Issue involved is regarding a Purchase Order (PO) dated 26th March 2019 and other similar orders received from the DMDE, DDRD, under the MOD, 301, for supply of Marine - Pressure tight and non-pressure tight cables falling under HS Code 8544 for use as 'Parts of Warship', claiming concessional rate of GST at 5% in terms of Sr. No. 252 of the Notification No.1/2017-I.T. (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. 2.8.2 Applicant has a Head Office/Corporate Office in Mumbai, registered under CGST/MGST Act and in whose name /address all the sales or purchase orders are negotiated/fixed/received. Applicant has manufacturing units & Sales Depots in many / different States which are also registered in the respective states for the purpose of effecting supplies therefrom. Since the entire business decisions of the Applicant including the Purchase Order is "accepted" in the "State of Maharashtra", subject Application is submitted at Mumbai. 2.8.3 Subject goods, will be supplied ex VAPI, (Gujarat State) Fad the Tax Invoice shall be raised, from the State of Gujarat since an Invoice has t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prima facie view entertained by this Authority regarding jurisdiction to the case does not appear to be just and correct as it would render the specific provisions of the MGST Act redundant. 2.9.7 Applicant has submitted that, the fact that it has fulfilled the twin basic conditions: (a) registration GSTIN obtained on the GST portal, (b) deposited fee amount in Electronic Cash Ledger, are weightier, sound grounds and reasons why Application submitted by the Applicant, needs to be "admitted" for hearing on merits. 2.9.8 Applicant has submitted that this Authority has the competence, jurisdiction, powers and Authority to admit the application and give verdict and has further stated that: The Statutory functionary has to act as per the Statute; The AAR is a "tribunal" with trappings of the Court; The principles of Civil procedure apply and the AAR has no inherent jurisdiction, or discretion. 2.9.9 A plain and simple reading of the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, (MGST, Act) makes it clear that the GST law is complete code in itself for the entire substantive & procedural law governing the Advance Ruling mechanism including consti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he service is an 'export service'. In such a situation, the AAR would lack basic "jurisdiction", as it cannot give relief asked for. 2.9.14 Citing the provisions of Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, applicant has submitted that the Explanation to Section 20 states that "A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place". Applicant has also cited the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay vs. Prasad Trading Company on 6 August, 1991, 1992 AIR 1514 = 1991 (8) TMI 332 - SUPREME COURT and submitted that in the present case, the major part of the cause of action has arisen in Maharashtra State and therefore as per the MGST Act, Maharashtra State AAR has to entertain an Application for Advance Ruling from the person, who is registered and who files application in Form and manner prescribed and pays on line fees and it is not correct 'to say that the State of Gujarat alone has "jurisdiction" based on the raising of the "Tax Invoice". 2.9.15 Applicant has also submitted that if t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , in conformity with the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court order dated 25.10.2019, in the case of Dr. (Col.) Subhash Chandra Talwar Vs T.Choithram. 03. CONTENTION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL OFFICER: 3.1. The jurisdictional officer has submitted that the company has received the order for manufacture, testing and supply of subject goods from the 'Defence Machinery Design establishment (DMDE). The "End User Certificate" from DMDE certifies that the goods being procured vide Purchase order No.: HLC/85/PT- l 0(32 Types)/S4*/225 Dt. 26 Mar 2019 are in line with stipulation mentioned in notification under GST. There is no other document available on record which can prove that the goods mentioned in Purchase Order are to be used as a parts of warship. In the subject case, the applicant produces any document which can show that the goods i.e. Pressure Tight (PT) Cables are being used as parts of warships then the GST rate would be 5% otherwise it would be 18%. 04. HEARING Preliminary hearing in the matter was held on 12.12.2019. Shri D.P. Bhave (Advocate), and Shri Inder Thakur (G.M.), Indirect Taxes appeared, and requested for admission of their application. Jurisdictional Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he situs of supply of goods is originating from Gujarat and all other legal provisions of GST Acts are also to be fulfilled in Gujarat. The Gujarat GST authorities have the jurisdiction to collect GST on this transaction. Applicant is not carrying out any supply from the State of Maharashtra. Hence, the jurisdiction of this transaction is covered under Gujarat and Maharashtra has no scope to levy GST thereon. 5.7 On the issue of admissibility or maintainability of this application. applicant has made exhaustive written and oral submissions. Applicant has submitted that this authority has the power and jurisdiction to rule on advance ruling applications filed by any registered person under GST Act and that its Maharashtra GST registered office can make this application even if the "Tax Invoice" is raised from Gujarat. Applicant has stated that if their application is to be rejected on the grounds of jurisdiction then, the application should be transferred to the concerned state authority or the fees paid along with the application should be refunded to them. 5.8. We shall now examine the provisions of laws laid down by the CGST Act for the purposes of advance rulings. Chapte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 97, an applicant, desirous of obtaining an advance ruling under this Chapter may make an application in such form and manner and accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed, stating the question/s on which the advance ruling is sought and the question/s shall be in respect of any of the specific categories. mentioned under clauses (a) to (g) of the said section. Section 98 of the CGST Act is related to procedure to be followed by the Advance Ruling Authority, on receipt of an application and after giving an opportunity to the applicant, the Advance Ruling Authority may either admit or reject the application. After admission, an order is required to be passed and copies of the same is to be provided to the applicant. As per Section 103 the advance ruling pronounced by the Authority under this Chapter shall be binding only on the applicant who had sought the ruling, and on the concerned officer or the jurisdictional officer in respect of the applicant. From the above-mentioned provisions, it is seen that this authority is constituted by the Government of the State of Maharashtra to decide on matters or questions specified in sub- section (2) of section 97, in relation to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who is entitled to make an advance ruling application. 5.11 Applicant has submitted that jurisdiction of the functionaries under the Act cannot be linked to the place of production of goods or services or movement of goods since GST is a Destination based tax (consumption tax). Applicant has also 'Argued that if State of Gujarat is the appropriate State, then why not "Delhi State", as the delivery of goods is being made on Inter-state basis to the registered person under the Delhi GST Act or why not the State where the Warships would be built using the cables supplied by the Applicant. 5.11.1 Under GST regime, tax is required to be paid by the person making the taxable supply. The levy of tax under the GST Act is not linked to the place of production of goods or services or movement of goods, rather it is on the supplier of goods or services or both and the taxable supply is being made by the distinct Gujarat entity. 5.12 The Applicant's contention that they have obtained GSTIN on the GST portal and deposited fee amount in Electronic Cash Ledger, and hence their application should be entertained is incorrect, in view of Section 95 of the GST Act, which states that, applicant mu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocedure Code (CPC) and made submissions stating that this authority has the jurisdiction to pass a ruling in the subject case since the major part of the cause of action, in the subject case, has arisen in Maharashtra State. 5.16.1 In this context we find that the taxability, in the subject case arises in Gujarat since the supply is taking place from Gujarat, the E-way Bill for transportation will be issued from Gujarat and the tax assessment and audit will also be in Gujarat. Thus, the correct classification of the product and the rate of GST thereon will be decided by the Gujarat Tax Authorities. 5.16.2 In view of the above we find that the subject application is not maintainable due to the non-fulfillment of the provisions of Section 95 of the CGST Act in as much as it is the Gujarat factory, which is undertaking the supply of goods and not the Maharashtra factory. 5.17 Finally, the applicant has submitted that this authority should follow the principles analogous to the provisions of the CPC, 1908 and therefore, if a conclusion is reached that the Application is "not maintainable", in such a case the application should be transferred to the AAR having jurisdiction and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained and reasonable opportunity of being heard has also been given to the applicant. We have heard the views of applicant but found the same not acceptable. Applicant may file such application before the concerned jurisdictional advance ruling authority. 5.19 In view of above. this authority has no jurisdiction to pass ruing on such matters pertaining to supply of goods or services or both which are being undertaken outside Maharashtra State by a different and distinct entity. We find no reason to entertain this application. Hence, without going into the merits of the case, we find that the present application of the applicant seeking ruling on questions stated hereinabove is not maintainable and liable for rejection. 06. In view of the extensive deliberations as held hereinabove, we pass an order as follows: ORDER (Under Section 98 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017) NO.GST-ARA-37/2019-20/B-42 Mumbai, dt. 18-03-2020 For reasons as discussed in the body of the order, the subject application for advance ruling made by the applicant is not maintainable and rejected under the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
