Company's Advance Ruling on GST Jurisdiction Denied: 'Place of Supply' Issue Out of Scope

The application for advance ruling by a company manufacturing Hand-made Cutting Knives for Shoe industries, seeking clarification on IGST or SGST & CGST applicability, was rejected. The ruling authority cited its limited jurisdiction under Section 97 of the CGST Act and Tamil Nadu GST Act, stating the issue of 'Place of Supply' determination was beyond its scope. The rejection was based on the authority's inability to decide matters outside Section 97(2) of the Acts, emphasizing the need to comprehend its jurisdictional boundaries in addressing tax-related queries.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether IGST or SGST & CGST should be charged on sales of Hand-made Cutting Knives for Shoe industries.

Analysis:
The case involved an application for advance ruling by a company engaged in the manufacture of Hand-made Cutting Knives for Shoe industries. The applicant sought clarification on whether they should charge IGST or SGST & CGST on their sales. The company serves both overseas and local customers, receiving orders from abroad but delivering locally within Tamil Nadu. The applicant's Authorized Representative presented the case, emphasizing the need for clarity on the tax applicability for their supply transactions.

The Advance Ruling Authority considered the scope of advance rulings as per Section 97 of the CGST Act and Tamil Nadu GST Act. The section outlines the questions for which advance rulings can be sought, including the determination of the liability to pay tax on goods or services. However, the authority noted that the issue of whether a transaction is an inter-state or intra-state supply, based on the 'Place of Supply,' was beyond its jurisdiction. Consequently, the application was rejected on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction to decide the issue related to the 'Place of Supply.'

In conclusion, the ruling stated that the application for advance ruling by the company was rejected under Sub-section (2) of Section 98 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the TNGST Act, 2017. The rejection was based on the authority's limited jurisdiction to decide issues earmarked under Section 97(2) of the Acts, highlighting that matters related to the 'Place of Supply' fell outside its purview. The ruling emphasized the importance of understanding the jurisdictional boundaries of the Advance Ruling Authority in addressing specific tax-related queries.

---