Page 80 - GSTL_27th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 4

406 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 39
2.8.2 Applicant has a Head Office/Corporate Office in Mumbai, regis-
tered under CGST/MGST Act and in whose name/address all the sales or pur-
chase orders are negotiated/fixed/received. Applicant has manufacturing units
& Sales Depots in many/different States which are also registered in the respec-
tive States for the purpose of effecting supplies therefrom. Since the entire busi-
ness decisions of the Applicant including the Purchase Order is “accepted” in the
“State of Maharashtra”, subject Application is submitted at Mumbai.
2.8.3 Subject goods, will be supplied ex VAPI, (Gujarat State) and the
Tax Invoice shall be raised, from the State of Gujarat since an Invoice has to ac-
company the goods.
2.8.4 Subject issue involves interpretation of Entry No. 252 of Notifica-
tion dated 28-6-2017, which does not impose any condition precedent to avail
concessional rate of GST. It merely provides that the Goods supplied can be of
any Chapter, but should be used as ‘Parts of goods of Heading 8906”.
2.8.5 The subject goods are essential parts and components of a
ship/warship without which the warship would not be complete and would not
exist. These are very integral for the functioning of the ship and can also be sepa-
rated from the ship for repair/replacement.
2.9 Further submissions are made by the applicant as follows :
2.9.1 Their Accounting System is centralized and handled/operated
from Mumbai. They have Manufacturing Locations and Warehouses/Depots in
various States in India.
2.9.2 Applicant has already supplied the specified goods on “inter-State
basis” from their Factory at UMERGAON, VAPI (Gujarat) under “Tax Invoice”
issued from the factory at VAPI.
2.9.3 The goods in question were specially designed, manufactured for
fulfillment of the Defence Department requirement and are supplied from appli-
cant’s factory at Umergaon, (Vapi and Gujarat) and as such the “Tax Invoice”,
which must accompany the goods, moved on inter-State basis to Delhi, was is-
sued from the Gujarat State.
2.9.4 Applicant presumes that the “lack of jurisdiction” of this authori-
ty to hear the subject matter is based solely on the ground that the “tax invoice”
has been issued from VAPI-factory, and as such the State of Gujarat is the State
in which the Jurisdiction gets shifted. This would mean that the place/State from
where the manufactured goods are removed or moved would alone have juris-
diction” to entertain an Application for Advance Ruling.
2.9.5 Jurisdiction of the functionaries under the Act cannot be linked to
the place of production of goods or services or movement of goods. GST is a des-
tination-based or consumption-based tax. Hence, the place of consumption will
decide the State that will collect tax.
2.9.6 Even if it is granted that the State of Gujarat is the appropriate
State, the further question may arise is why not “Delhi State”, as the delivery of
goods is being made on inter-State basis to the registered person under the Delhi
GST Act? Or why not the State where the Warships would be built using the ca-
bles supplied by the Applicant? Thus the prima facie view entertained by this Au-
thority regarding jurisdiction to hear the case does not appear to be just and cor-
rect as it would render the specific provisions of the MGST Act redundant.
2.9.7 Applicant has submitted that, the fact that it has fulfilled the twin
GST LAW TIMES  27th August 2020  80