2019 (5) TMI 1072 - AAR - GST

Scope of Advance Ruling Authority - Levy of IGST or SGST CGST? - sale of Hand-made Cutting Knives for Shoe industries - inter-state supply or intra-state supply? - appellant get orders from overseas customers, but delivery is made locally (within Tamil Nadu) and payment is received in foreign currency - HELD THAT - Section 97 of the CGST Act / Tamil Nadu GST Act (TNGST) has given the scope of Advance Ruling Authority, i.e., the question on which the Advance Ruling can be sought. The Act limits the Advance Ruling Authority to decide the issues earmarked for it under Section 97 (2) and no other issue can be decided by the Advance Ruling Authority. The issue for which Advance Ruling is sought depends on the Place of Supply of the goods, which is not in the ambit of this authority. The Application is therefore rejected without going into the merits of the case, on the issue of lack of jurisdiction. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether IGST or SGST & CGST should be charged on sales of Hand-made Cutting Knives for Shoe industries.

Analysis:
The case involved an application for advance ruling by a company engaged in the manufacture of Hand-made Cutting Knives for Shoe industries. The applicant sought clarification on whether they should charge IGST or SGST & CGST on their sales. The company serves both overseas and local customers, receiving orders from abroad but delivering locally within Tamil Nadu. The applicant's Authorized Representative presented the case, emphasizing the need for clarity on the tax applicability for their supply transactions.

The Advance Ruling Authority considered the scope of advance rulings as per Section 97 of the CGST Act and Tamil Nadu GST Act. The section outlines the questions for which advance rulings can be sought, including the determination of the liability to pay tax on goods or services. However, the authority noted that the issue of whether a transaction is an inter-state or intra-state supply, based on the 'Place of Supply,' was beyond its jurisdiction. Consequently, the application was rejected on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction to decide the issue related to the 'Place of Supply.'

In conclusion, the ruling stated that the application for advance ruling by the company was rejected under Sub-section (2) of Section 98 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the TNGST Act, 2017. The rejection was based on the authority's limited jurisdiction to decide issues earmarked under Section 97(2) of the Acts, highlighting that matters related to the 'Place of Supply' fell outside its purview. The ruling emphasized the importance of understanding the jurisdictional boundaries of the Advance Ruling Authority in addressing specific tax-related queries.