Page 82 - GSTL_27th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 4

408 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 39
corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or,
in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office,
at such place’. Applicant has also cited the decision of the Honourable Supreme
Court of India in Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay v. Prasad Trading Company on 6
August, 1991, AIR 1992 SC 1514 and submitted that in the present case, the major
part of the cause of action has arisen in Maharashtra State and therefore as per
the MGST Act, Maharashtra State AAR has to entertain an Application for Ad-
vance Ruling from the person, who is registered and who files application in
Form and manner prescribed and pays online fees and it is not correct to say that
the State of Gujarat alone has “jurisdiction” based on the raising of the “Tax In-
voice”.
2.9.15 Applicant has also submitted that if this authority is of the view
that it has no jurisdiction, in view of the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 CPC, the
application is to be returned and the applicant can present it before the authority
having competent jurisdiction and is entitled to exclude the period during which
the subject application was pending before this authority, in view of the provi-
sions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, and adjustment of fee paid should also
be allowed.
2.9.16 Applicant has finally submitted that while this authority consti-
tuted under Section 96 of the MGST Act, is an Authority vested with powers and
jurisdiction to decide matters brought before it in terms of the Statute, and its
orders have finality, subject to appeal, and in exercising these powers has trap-
pings of a court of law, yet it being NOT a court of law, does not have “any in-
herent powers” like a Court. Section 106 of the MGST Act clothes this authority
with powers to “regulate” its own procedures, but that is “subject to preceding
statutory prescriptions”. Hence this authority cannot add any condition or bur-
den nor can it ignore any substantive provisions; and if that be the true position
in law, this Authority cannot decline to “admit” the Application on the assumed
ground or reason that the Tax Invoice is not generated in the State of Maharash-
tra and as such it lacks basic, inherent “jurisdiction”. A deviation from the statu-
tory provisions violates rule of law, and is liable to be quashed as bad in law.
2.9.17 Thus the applicant has concluded that; the subject Application
for Advance Ruling is in conformity with the statutory requirements and hence it
be ‘ admitted”, and if found non-maintainable then the application may have to
be transferred to the AAR having jurisdiction and competence to give verdict
and in that event the fees paid may also be “appropriated” to such new Authori-
ty; this authority has no inherent jurisdiction, being an Authority constituted un-
der the MGST Act, it has to follow the provisions of Chapter XVII therein, with-
out any addition or omission of any statutory prescription; the view of this au-
thority with respect to non-maintainability of the application is untenable and if
not admitted and if this authority decides to “return” the Application with a di-
rection to file it in State of Gujarat or any other State, then appropriate Orders
may be passed for “granting refund of fees”, in conformity with the law laid
down by the Honourable Supreme Court order dated 25-10-2019, in the case of
Dr. (Col.) Subhash Chandra Talwar v. T. Choithram.
3. Contention of the Jurisdictional Officer :
3.1 The jurisdictional officer has submitted that the company has re-
ceived the order for manufacture, testing and supply of subject goods from the
‘Defence Machinery Design Establishment (DMDE). The “End User Certificate”
from DMDE certifies that the goods being procured vide Purchase Order No. :
GST LAW TIMES  27th August 2020  82