https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422699 The Gujarat AAR rejected the applicant's request to determine the nature, classification, value, and time of supply for an aircraft manufacturing contract with Airbus. The application was deemed premature and non-maintainable due to jurisdictional issues. Though the applicant claimed manufacturing would occur in Gujarat, the contract specified Bengaluru as the execution address, with no formal notification of change. The AAR emphasized that GST registrations in different states create distinct legal entities under Section 25(5) of the CGST Act, making the Gujarat-registered entity ineligible to seek ruling on activities potentially occurring in Karnataka. en-us Wed, 11 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Apr 2025 11:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422699 The Gujarat AAR rejected the applicant's request to determine the nature, classification, value, and time of supply for an aircraft manufacturing contract with Airbus. The application was deemed premature and non-maintainable due to jurisdictional issues. Though the applicant claimed manufacturing would occur in Gujarat, the contract specified Bengaluru as the execution address, with no formal notification of change. The AAR emphasized that GST registrations in different states create distinct legal entities under Section 25(5) of the CGST Act, making the Gujarat-registered entity ineligible to seek ruling on activities potentially occurring in Karnataka. Case-Laws GST Wed, 11 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422699