2019 (6) TMI 1010 - AAR - GST

Requirement of separate registration for different states - raising of invoice from Mumbai Head Office for imports received at various ports, located in various states in India - place of supply of goods - HELD THAT - Since the applicant will be importing the goods into India, as per Section 7(2) of the IGST Act, 2017 such supply of goods imported into India shall be treated as supply of goods in the course of inter state trade or commerce - in respect of goods imported into India, as per Section 11(a) of the IGST Act, 2017, the place of supply shall be the location of the importer and in the present case since the importer is registered in Mumbai, the place of supply shall be Mumbai, Maharashtra. In the present case, the place of supply is the location of the importer who is situated in the State of Maharashtra and hence the applicant will be clearing the goods by paying IGST from their GSTIN issued in Mumbai, Maharashtra. Since the applicant will be storing the goods, after import, in various states for further sales, whether that would be interstate or intrastate supply would depend upon the place of supply of goods as per Section 10 and Section 11 of the IGST Act, 2017. The place from where the applicant makes a taxable Supply of Goods shall be his location, in this case, the Mumbai Head Office/Registered Office at Mumbai and even if the applicant has godowns in different states, we feel that the applicant can clear the goods on the basis of invoices issued by the Mumbai Head Office/Registered Office at Mumbai on payment of IGST in the State of Maharashtra and therefore they need not take separate registration in other states. Whether the applicant can adopt the procedure to raise the invoice from Mumbai Head Office/Registered Office at Mumbai for imports received at various ports, located in various States in India and charge IGST from Mumbai to our customers in various state is proper or not? - HELD THAT - Not answered since the question is not covered under Section 97 of the CGST Act, 2017. If we cancel separate registration in various state can we do the transaction on Mumbai Head Office GSIN, then in case of issuance of E - way bill is it correct to mention the GSTN of Mumbai and mention dispatch place of port of respective state/port? - HELD THAT - Not answered since the question is not covered under Section 97 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the applicant requires registration in each State separately.
2. Whether the applicant can adopt the procedure to raise the invoice from Mumbai Head Office for imports received at various ports and charge IGST from Mumbai to customers in various states.
3. If separate registration in various states is canceled, can the transaction be done on Mumbai Head Office GSTN, and is it correct to mention the GSTN of Mumbai and the dispatch place of the respective state/port in the E-way bill.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Requirement of Registration in Each State Separately:

The applicant, Gandhar Oil Refinery (India) Limited, sought clarification on whether they need separate GST registrations in each state where they import and store coal. The applicant is registered under the Companies Act, 1956, with its Head Office in Mumbai, Maharashtra, and is engaged in trading non-coking coal and manufacturing petroleum products. They import coal at various ports across different states and have GST registrations in those states.

The applicant argued that since all significant business activities and decision-making processes occur at the Head Office in Maharashtra, and all import-related documents (agreements, letters of credit, commercial invoices, bills of lading, etc.) are in the name of the Head Office, the place of supply should be Maharashtra. They proposed canceling the GST registrations in other states and conducting all transactions under the Maharashtra GST number.

The Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) examined the provisions under the GST laws, specifically Section 22 of the CGST Act, 2017, which mandates registration in the state from where taxable supplies are made. The AAR noted that the place of supply for imported goods, as per Section 11(a) of the IGST Act, 2017, is the location of the importer, which in this case is Maharashtra. Therefore, the AAR concluded that the applicant does not require separate registrations in each state and can operate under the GSTIN of Maharashtra.

2. Procedure to Raise Invoice from Mumbai Head Office for Imports:

The applicant sought to confirm if they could raise invoices from the Mumbai Head Office for imports received at various ports and charge IGST from Mumbai to customers in various states. However, the AAR did not answer this question, stating that it is not covered under Section 97 of the CGST Act, 2017, which outlines the scope of advance rulings.

3. Issuance of E-way Bill with Mumbai GSTN:

The applicant also inquired if, upon canceling separate registrations, they could issue E-way bills under the Mumbai GSTN while mentioning the dispatch place of the respective state/port. Similar to the second issue, the AAR did not provide an answer, citing that the question is not covered under Section 97 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Conclusion:

The AAR ruled that the applicant does not need separate GST registrations in each state and can operate under the GSTIN of Maharashtra. However, the AAR did not provide answers to the questions regarding the procedure for raising invoices from the Mumbai Head Office and the issuance of E-way bills, as these issues were not within the scope of Section 97 of the CGST Act, 2017.