2022 (3) TMI 1365 - AAR - GST

Maintainability of Advance Ruling application - appropriate Forum - Requirement of registration - provision of service related to Renting of Immovable property - requirement of registration of person registered in the State of Telangana who is in possession of an immovable property in the State of Maharashtra - HELD THAT - As seen from the material papers submitted by the applicant, the place of supply of service under Sub Section 3 of Section 12 of the IGST Act is in the State where the immovable property is located and therefore this AAR is not the appropriate forum in terms of Section 96 of the CGST Act, 2017. The application is rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for Advance Ruling under Section 97(1) of TGST Act, 2017.
2. Interpretation of provisions under CGST Act and TGST Act.
3. Admission of application based on payment of fees and no objection from jurisdictional officer.
4. Tax liability for services provided from Telangana to Maharashtra.
5. Requirement of registration in Maharashtra for renting immovable property.

Analysis:
1. The application was filed by M/s. Rajasekhar Reddy Tummuru under Section 97(1) of TGST Act, 2017, seeking clarification on tax liability for services provided from Telangana to Maharashtra.
2. The Authority noted that unless specified, provisions of CGST Act and TGST Act are the same. The expression 'GST Act' refers to both CGST Act and TGST Act for the purpose of Advance Ruling.
3. The application was admitted after the applicant submitted proof of fee payment for Advance Ruling and the jurisdictional officer did not raise any objections to the admission.
4. M/s. Rajasekhar Reddy Tummuru, registered in Telangana, provides services of renting immovable property in Maharashtra and pays IGST for interstate services.
5. The main question raised was whether registration in Maharashtra is required for providing services related to renting immovable property by a person registered in Telangana and possessing property in Maharashtra.
6. During the personal hearing, the authorized representatives reiterated their submissions and requested a prompt disposal of the application on merits.
7. The Authority, after examining the documents, found that the place of supply of service under IGST Act is where the immovable property is located, making the AAR not the appropriate forum for the query. Consequently, the application was rejected.