Gujarat AAR Rules It Lacks Jurisdiction On Supply of Goods And Services Matter in Madhya Pradesh
Bhavya Singh
20 July 2023 4:45 AM GMT
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) has ruled that it does not have jurisdiction to rule on a matter involving a supply of goods and services in Madhya Pradesh. The ruling was made in the case of Pooja Construction Co., which had sought an advance ruling on whether it was required to obtain registration with the State Tax Authorities of Madhya Pradesh. M/s....
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) has ruled that it does not have jurisdiction to rule on a matter involving a supply of goods and services in Madhya Pradesh.
The ruling was made in the case of Pooja Construction Co., which had sought an advance ruling on whether it was required to obtain registration with the State Tax Authorities of Madhya Pradesh.
M/s. Pooja Construction Co. is a partnership firm, engaged in carrying on the business of general government civil contractors, providing work contract service in relation to construction, erection, repairing, renovation, maintenance of immovable properties.
The applicant stated that they entered into an agreement with Narmada Valley Development Department, a government entity for Operation & Maintenance of V.T Pumps, Centrifugal Pumps with Motor, K.V. sub-station installed at Kathora Lift Irrigation Scheme, Stage- I, II, III, at Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, for a period of 5 years. The above work was allotted to the applicant consequent to the succeeding bidding process.
The applicant provides services in relation to work contract services in terms of section 2(l19) of the CGST Act,2017. The receiver of service being a local authority, has prompted the applicant to make this application, to ascertain the applicable rate of GST. It is further stated in the application that the services provided includes supply of goods as well as Manpower Services.
The applicant under Sr. No. 14 of Form GST ARA -01, which is the application form for Advance ruling, sought answers to the following questions:
(i) Whether the applicant is required to obtain registration with State Tax Authorities of Madhya Pradesh State.
(ii)Tax Rate that will be applicable for providing the above service.
(iii) SAC code applicable for providing above service under Work Contract.
After considering the submissions made by the Applicant in their application for advance ruling as well as the submissions made during the course of personal hearing, the bench prima facie observed that the application including questions posed before them seeking a ruling was not only cryptic but also difficult to comprehend.
On going through the first question, the bench observed that the applicant had made the application before the Gujarat AAR, seeking a ruling on whether he was liable to get himself registered under the Madhya Pradesh GST.
“On being asked during the personal hearing it was informed that the place of supply of their service is Madhya Pradesh. Since the contract is not provided and also since the facts mentioned are cryptic and difficult to comprehend, we are of the opinion that the proper authority for giving a ruling on the aforementioned question is the Madhya Pradesh AAR and not GAAR,” the bench held.
The application filed by the applicant was rejected by the GAAR stating that it did not have the jurisdiction to rule on the question on account of the fact that as per the applicant the place of supply was Madhya Pradesh.
Name of Applicant: Pooja Construction Co
Order Date: 2/07/2023
