Gujarat GST AAR: No Jurisdiction on Supply of Services and Goods in MP State

The Gujarat Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) mentioned that the same does not secure the jurisdiction for ruling on the case that consists of the supply of goods and services in Madhya Pradesh.

In the case of Pooja Construction company, the ruling was performed that would seek for the advance ruling that if the same was needed to get the GST registration with the State Tax Authorities of Madhya Pradesh.

M/s. Pooja Construction Co. is a partnership firm, that does carrying on the business of general government civil contractors, furnishing the work contract service for the construction, erection, repairing, renovation, and maintenance of immovable properties.

The applicant, they were in an agreement with the Narmada Valley Development Department, a government entity for the Operation & Maintenance of V.T Pumps, Centrifugal Pumps with Motor, K.V. sub-station installed at Kathora Lift Irrigation Scheme, Stage- I, II, III, at Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh for the duration of 5 years. After successfully obtaining the bidding procedure the aforesaid work was provided to the petitioner.

In concern to the work contact services, the petitioner furnished the services under section 2(119) of the CGST Act 2017. Being a local authority the recipient of the service would have prompted the petitioner to do this application for finding the subject GST rate. In the application, it mentioned that the services furnished comprise the supply of goods and manpower services.

The petitioner under Sr. No. 14 of Form GST ARA -01, which is the application form for Advance ruling, pursued answers to the below-stated questions:

Whether the petitioner would be needed to get the registration with the state tax authorities of the Madhya Pradesh state.

For furnishing the aforesaid service the tax rate shall be subject to be applied.
Under the work contract, the SAC code is subject to be applied for furnishing the aforesaid service.

Post acknowledging the submissions which the petitioner has made in their application towards the advance ruling including the submissions furnished at the time of the personal hearing, the bench based on what appears witnessed that the application along with the questions placed for them asking for the ruling was cryptic as well as difficult to understand.

In the 1st question, the bench witnessed that the petitioner would have made the application posed to the Gujarat AAR asking for the ruling if he was obligated to register under the Madhya Pradesh GST.

“On being asked during the personal hearing it was informed that the place of supply of their service is Madhya Pradesh. Since the contract is not provided and also since the facts mentioned are cryptic and difficult to comprehend, we are of the opinion that the proper authority for giving a ruling on the aforementioned question is the Madhya Pradesh AAR and not GAAR,” the bench stated.

GAAR has dismissed the application that the petitioner would have filed mentioning that the same does not secure the jurisdiction to the rule on the question on the grounds of the reality that according to the petitioner, the place of supply was Madhya Pradesh.