TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>GST Advance Ruling Dismissed: Partnership Firm's Tax Query Redirected to Correct Jurisdictional Authority</h1> <h3>In Re: M/s. Pooja Construction Co.</h3> In Re: M/s. Pooja Construction Co. - TMI Issues involved:The issues involved in this legal judgment are the jurisdiction of the Advance Ruling Authority, the requirement of registration with State Tax Authorities of Madhya Pradesh, the applicable tax rate for services provided, and the applicable SAC code for work contracts.Jurisdiction of Advance Ruling Authority:The applicant, a partnership firm engaged in work contract services, sought an advance ruling from the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (GAAR) regarding registration under Madhya Pradesh GST. However, it was revealed during the personal hearing that the place of supply for their services is Madhya Pradesh. Due to this discrepancy and the cryptic nature of the application, the GAAR concluded that the Madhya Pradesh Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) should have jurisdiction over this matter. As a result, the GAAR rejected the application based on lack of jurisdiction.Requirement of Registration with State Tax Authorities:The applicant had entered into an agreement with a government entity in Madhya Pradesh for operation and maintenance services. The applicant was uncertain about the requirement of obtaining registration with the State Tax Authorities of Madhya Pradesh. The GAAR did not delve into this issue due to the lack of jurisdiction and the need for the Madhya Pradesh AAR to address it.Applicable Tax Rate for Services Provided:The applicant also sought a ruling on the tax rate applicable to the services provided under the work contract. However, the GAAR did not address this question as the primary issue of jurisdiction took precedence in this case.Applicable SAC Code for Work Contracts:Another query raised by the applicant was regarding the applicable Service Accounting Code (SAC) for the work contract services provided. This question was not specifically addressed by the GAAR due to the jurisdictional issue that led to the rejection of the application.This legal judgment highlights the importance of clarity in applications for advance rulings and the significance of jurisdiction in determining which authority should address specific tax-related queries.
TaxTMI 