GST Registration for Interstate Property Rental: Telangana AAR Rejects Jurisdiction in Maharashtra Property Case

The AAR rejected an application from a Telangana-registered taxpayer seeking clarification on whether registration in Maharashtra was required for renting immovable property located there. The applicant currently pays IGST on these interstate services. After examining the documents and conducting a personal hearing, the Authority determined that since the place of supply under IGST Act is where the immovable property is located (Maharashtra), the Telangana AAR lacked jurisdiction to rule on the matter. The application was admitted after fee payment and no objection from the jurisdictional officer, but ultimately rejected on jurisdictional grounds.

---

---

Issues:
1. Application for Advance Ruling under Section 97(1) of TGST Act, 2017.
2. Interpretation of provisions under CGST Act and TGST Act.
3. Admission of application based on payment of fees and no objection from jurisdictional officer.
4. Tax liability for services provided from Telangana to Maharashtra.
5. Requirement of registration in Maharashtra for renting immovable property.

Analysis:
1. The application was filed by M/s. Rajasekhar Reddy Tummuru under Section 97(1) of TGST Act, 2017, seeking clarification on tax liability for services provided from Telangana to Maharashtra.
2. The Authority noted that unless specified, provisions of CGST Act and TGST Act are the same. The expression 'GST Act' refers to both CGST Act and TGST Act for the purpose of Advance Ruling.
3. The application was admitted after the applicant submitted proof of fee payment for Advance Ruling and the jurisdictional officer did not raise any objections to the admission.
4. M/s. Rajasekhar Reddy Tummuru, registered in Telangana, provides services of renting immovable property in Maharashtra and pays IGST for interstate services.
5. The main question raised was whether registration in Maharashtra is required for providing services related to renting immovable property by a person registered in Telangana and possessing property in Maharashtra.
6. During the personal hearing, the authorized representatives reiterated their submissions and requested a prompt disposal of the application on merits.
7. The Authority, after examining the documents, found that the place of supply of service under IGST Act is where the immovable property is located, making the AAR not the appropriate forum for the query. Consequently, the application was rejected.

---