AAR rejects application for advance ruling on place of supply for antenna installation services across multiple states under Section 97(2)

The AAR Telangana dismissed an application seeking advance ruling on place of supply determination for installation, testing and commissioning services of antennas across multiple states. The applicant provided services to a Bangalore-based company involving antenna installation in various states outside their home state. The AAR held that determination of place of supply does not fall within the exhaustive list of subjects enumerated under Section 97(2) of CGST Act, 2017, which defines the scope of advance ruling applications. Since the query pertained to place of supply determination under IGST Act provisions, which is not covered under permissible subjects for advance ruling, the application was rejected for falling outside the statutory ambit.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case are related to the determination of the liability to raise an IGST invoice for the supply of services such as installation, testing, and commissioning of antennas installed in other states, and whether the applicant can obtain an Advance Ruling regarding this liability.

Issue 1: Liability to Raise IGST Invoice

Brief Facts:
The applicant, engaged in manufacturing satellite communication antenna systems, is required to install antennas in various states of India, including Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The contractee, M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd., Bangalore, is insisting on separate temporary GST numbers for each location/state. The applicant seeks an Advance Ruling on their liability to raise an IGST invoice for these services.

Opinion and Findings:
The applicant's application falls within the ambit of Section 97 of the GST Act. The applicant has not submitted additional material or attended a personal hearing. The installation, testing, and commissioning activities are carried out by skilled technicians and engineers at various locations/states in India. The determination of the place of supply under the IGST Act is crucial in this scenario. However, the application does not align with the exhaustive list of subjects for seeking a ruling under Section 97(2) of the CGST/TGST Act, as it does not cover the determination of the place of supply. Therefore, the application is rejected.

Issue 2: Scope of Advance Ruling

Brief Facts:
The applicant is seeking an Advance Ruling on whether they can raise an IGST invoice for services provided in different states, as directed by the contractee. The applicant manufactures a wide range of antenna systems and is required to install these systems at various locations in India.

Opinion and Findings:
The application does not meet the criteria specified under Section 97(2) of the CGST/TGST Act for seeking an Advance Ruling. Despite the detailed information provided by the applicant regarding their operations and the specific question raised, the issue of determining the place of supply is not covered under the listed subjects. As a result, the application does not fall within the scope of the Advance Ruling authority, leading to its rejection.

In conclusion, the Authority for Advance Ruling, Telangana rejected the application as the queries raised by the applicant regarding the liability to raise an IGST invoice for services provided in different states did not align with the provisions of Section 97(2) of the CGST/TGST Act. The application did not cover the determination of the place of supply, which is essential in such cases.

---