Page 156 - GSTL_16th July 2020_Vol. 38_Part 3

394 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provisions of both the CGST
Act and the MGST Act are the same except for certain provisions. Therefore, un-
less a mention is specifically made to any dissimilar provisions, a reference to the
CGST Act would also mean a reference to the same provision under the MGST
Act. Further to the earlier, henceforth for the purposes of this Advance Ruling,
the expression ‘GST Act’ would mean CGST Act and MGST Act.
2. Facts and contention - As per the applicant
The submissions of the applicant is as under :-
2.1 M/s. Panbase Resources Private Limited is providing intermediary
services to “overseas clients” and earning commission thereon. Transactions exe-
cuted by overseas clients are of export of goods to the importers at India.
2.2 Section 13 of the IGST [Act], 2017, determines the place of supply of
services where the location of the supplier or location of the recipient is outside
India and Section 13(8)(b) states that, in case of intermediary services the place of
supply shall be the location of the supplier of services.
3. Contention - As per the jurisdictional officer
The submissions of the jurisdictional officer are as under :-
3.1 The applicant has not submitted any documents in support of their
questions. Further, they have submitted two copies of invoices raised on their
overseas clients charging CGST/SGST on “Commission on Sales’.
3.2 The questions posed by the applicant involve determination of
place of supply of the services provided, as the applicant considering himself as
intermediary, has asked for a ruling on whether the services qualify to be an ex-
port or an intra-State supply of the services.
3.3 From the provisions of Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, it is ap-
parent that question on determination of the place of supply has not been cov-
ered in the above set of questions on which advance ruling can be given. Hence,
the application of the applicant does not merit consideration and should be re-
jected. In support of this contention, the jurisdictional officer has cited the Order
No. MAH/AAAR/SS-RJ/26/2018-19 dated 22-3-2019 passed by the Maharashtra
Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of M/s. Micro Instruments
[2019 (31) G.S.T.L. 526 (App. A.A.R. - GST)].
4. Hearing
Preliminary hearing in the matter was held on 11-2-2020. Shri Jayesh
Thakkar, C.A., Shri Sundar, Director, appeared and requested for admission of
their application. Jurisdictional Qfficer Sh. Anuj Kumar, Assistant Commissioner,
Div-1, CGST Belapur also appeared and made submissions. We heard both the
sides.
5. Observations and findings
5.1 We have gone through the facts of the case and the written submis-
sions made by both, the applicant and the departmental authority. In the subject
issue before us, we are asked to pass a ruling which would entail discussion of
the ‘place of supply’ under the GST Act.
5.2 Before we decide the question raised in this application it is essen-
tial that it be first determined whether the said questions regarding activities un-

GST LAW TIMES  16th July 2020  156