Supply within Taxable Territory: transfer of title between persons in India triggers GST registration and liability.

Transfer of title in goods between persons located in India constitutes a supply within the taxable territory under Schedule II paragraph 1(a), triggering GST registration and tax liability even if physical movement occurs outside India. Questions on HSN/SAC classification and applicable rates, and on time and value of supply under Sections 12, 13 and 15, could not be determined generically and must be decided transaction-wise with specific particulars. Questions on business category, document maintenance, refund entitlement, invoicing designation and retrospective refund are not admissible for advance ruling under Section 97(2) and were rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the transactions described by the applicant are goods or services and their HSN/SAC classification with applicable GST rate; (ii) Whether the applicant's query on the category of business and documents to be maintained is admissible for advance ruling; (iii) Classification of time and value of supply for the applicant's transactions; (iv) Whether the applicant can obtain refund of tax from input tax credit (ITC) availed; (v) Whether the applicant should raise invoices as export/nil-rated/exempt/zero-rated and entitlement to refund of previously paid tax; (vi) Whether the applicant is required to register under GST given the cross-border movement of goods.

Issue (i): Whether the transactions are goods or services and the HSN/SAC classification with applicable GST rate.

Analysis: The applicant described dealing in household items but did not furnish specific and detailed descriptions of the goods/services sufficient to determine HSN codes or applicable rates. Classification under Section 97(2)(a) is admissible but requires particularised information to apply tariff headings and rates.

Conclusion: The authority could not classify the items or specify HSN/SAC codes and GST rates due to lack of specific details from the applicant.

Issue (ii): Whether the question on the category of business and documents to be maintained is within the scope of advance ruling under Section 97(2).

Analysis: Section 97(2) enumerates specific matters eligible for advance ruling. The question on the applicant's business category and document maintenance does not fall within clauses (a)-(g) of Section 97(2) and thus is not a permissible subject for advance ruling.

Conclusion: The question is not covered by Section 97(2) and is rejected as not admissible for advance ruling.

Issue (iii): Classification of time and value of supply for the applicant's transactions.

Analysis: Time of supply and value of supply are governed by Sections 12, 13 and 15 of the CGST Act, 2017 and related chapters. Determination requires transaction-specific facts; the authority observed the pertinent statutory tests but could not classify time and value generically for the applicant without application to each transaction.

Conclusion: Time and value of supply cannot be generally classified by the authority; the applicant must determine them for each transaction in accordance with Sections 12, 13 and 15 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Issue (iv): Whether the applicant can obtain refund of tax from ITC availed.

Analysis: Admissibility of refunds is not among the matters covered by clauses (a)-(g) of Section 97(2) for advance ruling. Refund eligibility must be determined by the proper/jurisdictional officer on an appropriate refund application.

Conclusion: The question on entitlement to refund from ITC is not admissible for advance ruling and is rejected.

Issue (v): Whether invoices should be raised as export/nil-rated/exempt/zero-rated and entitlement to refund of previously paid tax.

Analysis: The question of proper invoicing designation and retrospective refund entitlement does not fall within Section 97(2)(a)-(g) and requires factual and procedural adjudication by the jurisdictional authorities; hence not admissible for advance ruling.

Conclusion: The question is not admissible for advance ruling and is rejected.

Issue (vi): Whether the applicant is required to register under GST given that goods are procured and delivered outside India while invoices are raised on an Indian entity.

Analysis: Schedule III paragraph 7 excludes supply of goods from a place in the non-taxable territory to another place in the non-taxable territory where goods do not enter India. However, Schedule II paragraph 1(a) treats transfer of title in goods as supply of goods. Here the applicant raises invoice on an Indian recipient (transfer of title between persons in India) even though physical movement occurs outside India; therefore the transaction constitutes supply within the taxable territory and attracts GST registration and tax liability.

Conclusion: GST is applicable to the applicant's described transactions and the applicant is required to register under GST.

Final Conclusion: The Authority has partially answered the questions: specific classification (HSN/SAC and rates), time and value determinations could not be given due to lack of particulars and must be determined transaction-wise by the applicant; questions outside the scope of Section 97(2) (business category, document maintenance, refund entitlement, invoicing designation and retrospective refund) are rejected as inadmissible for advance ruling; however, on the material before it the Authority concludes that the described transactions amount to supply of goods between persons in India and therefore attract GST registration and tax liability.

Ratio Decidendi: Where transfer of title in goods is effected between persons located in India, the transaction constitutes a supply within the taxable territory under Schedule II paragraph 1(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and GST registration and liability arise notwithstanding that physical movement of goods occurs outside India.

---