2023 (7) TMI 812 - AAR - GST

GST Advance Ruling Dismissed: Partnership Firm's Tax Query Redirected to Correct Jurisdictional Authority

Gujarat AAR rejected an advance ruling application from a partnership firm due to jurisdictional issues. The firm sought clarification on GST registration ... Requirement to obtain registration with State Tax Authorities of Madhya Pradesh State - place of supply of service - rate of tax - SAC code applicable for providing the service under Work Contract - HELD THAT:- The applicant has made this application before the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling, seeking a ruling on whether he is liable to get himself registered under Madhya Pradesh GST. On being asked during the personal hearing it was informed that the place of supply of their service is Madhya Pradesh. Since the contract is not provided and also since the facts mentioned is cryptic and difficult to comprehend, it is opined that the proper authority for giving a ruling on the aforementioned question is the Madhya Pradesh AAR and not GAAR. The application filed by the applicant is rejected as the GAAR does not have the jurisdiction to rule on the question on account of the fact that as per the applicant the place of supply is Madhya Pradesh. 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.