Multiple State GST Registration Clarification Denied Due to Jurisdictional Limitations Under Section 96 of CGST Act

The SC rejected the applicant's request for clarifying GST registration requirements across multiple states. The ruling highlighted the territorial limitations of the advance ruling authority, specifically that the Telangana authority cannot issue rulings for activities in other states. The application was dismissed due to jurisdictional constraints under Section 96 of the CGST Act, emphasizing the need for state-specific regulatory compliance.

---

---

Issues:
1. Necessity of temporary GST registration at various locations/states for claiming GST tax on installation, testing, and commissioning of antennas.
2. Applicability of Section 22 of the CGST Act.

Analysis:
1. The applicant, engaged in manufacturing satellite communication antenna systems, sought clarification on the requirement of temporary GST registration at different locations for claiming GST on antenna installation. They highlighted the need to install antennas in various states, including Andaman and Nicobar Islands, as per contracts. The applicant faced a demand from a contracting party to obtain separate temporary GST numbers for each state, contrary to their interpretation of the law. The application raised the issue of whether multiple registrations were necessary for activities across different states.

2. The applicant participated in a personal hearing, reiterating the questions raised and seeking a decision based on the merits presented. The ruling authority considered the applicant's place of business in Telangana and the question of liability for registrations in states where contracts were executed. The authority noted the provision under Section 96 of the CGST Act, which establishes the authority for advance ruling under a state goods and services Act as the ruling authority for that state. The ruling clarified the territorial nexus between the advance ruling authority and the state's geographical boundaries, emphasizing that the Telangana authority cannot rule on liabilities under the CGST Act or SGST Act in other states. Consequently, the application was rejected based on this territorial limitation.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of temporary GST registration requirements for multi-state activities and the territorial jurisdiction of the advance ruling authority. The ruling emphasized the limitations on the authority's jurisdiction based on the geographical boundaries of the state, leading to the rejection of the application seeking clarification on liability for registrations in states beyond Telangana.

---