Page 86 - GSTL_27th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 4

412 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 39
plicant has also argued that if State of Gujarat is the appropriate State, then 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 cables supplied by the Applicant.
5.11.1 Under GST regime, tax is required to be paid by the person mak-
ing the taxable supply. The levy of tax under the GST Act is not linked to the
place of production of goods or services or movement of goods, rather it is on the
supplier of goods or services or both and the taxable supply is being made by the
distinct Gujarat entity.
5.12 The Applicant’s contention that they have obtained GSTIN on the
GST portal and deposited fee amount in Electronic Cash Ledger, and hence their
application should be entertained is incorrect, in view of Section 95 of the GST
Act, which states that, applicant must be undertaking or proposing to undertake
the supply, in respect of which questions are asked.
5.13 We do not agree with the applicant’s statement that the AAP. has
no inherent jurisdiction. This authority is constituted under Maharashtra Goods
and Services Tax Act and the Section 1(2) provides the jurisdiction to the whole
of Maharashtra State. Every State in this country has formed Advance Ruling
Authorities in their respective States. This clearly marks out jurisdiction for au-
thorities in all States. It is not open for the AAR in any State to overstep their ju-
risdiction and pass rulings on applications made by persons who are not under-
taking or proposing to undertake the supply in respect of which the queries are
made.
5.14 Applicant has contended that the AAR, being the creature of a
Statute, has to function within the four corners of law, and cannot travel beyond
the boundaries earmarked for exercise of its powers, authority, duties and re-
sponsibilities as also the procedure prescribed by the Statute. Thus, on the one
hand the applicant is stating that GST law is a complete code in itself for the en-
tire substantive & procedural law governing the Advance Ruling mechanism and
on the other hand the applicant wants this authority to admit the application,
ignoring the provisions of Section 95 of the GST Act. Not admitting the applica-
tion because the applicant is not satisfying the provisions of Section 95 of the GST
Act, does not mean that this authority is adding new conditions or procedural
requirement beyond those specified in the provisions of the MGST Act.
5.15 Applicant is also of the opinion that this Authority shall not admit
the application only where the question raised in the application is already pend-
ing or decided in any proceedings in the case of an applicant under any of the
provisions of this Act. While it is a fact that in such a case an advance ruling ap-
plication may not be entertained, it is also provided by the law that the applica-
tion has to be made in a particular State, by the person who is undertaking or
proposing to undertake supply of goods or services or both in that particular
State only.
5.16 Applicant feels that the ground for non-maintainability of the sub-
ject application apparently is that ‘‘tax invoice” is/will be issued from a place
other than the State of Maharashtra and has reproduced Section 20 of the Civil
Procedure Code (CPC) and made submissions stating that this authority has the
jurisdiction to pass a ruling in the subject case since the major part of the cause of
action, in the subject case, has arisen in Maharashtra State.
5.16.1 In this context we find that the taxability, in the subject case aris-
GST LAW TIMES  27th August 2020  86