9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 527X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra State only. Therefore, this authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the subject application and to interfere in such activity of supply of goods , being carried out from another state. This authority has no jurisdiction to pass ruing on such matters pertaining to supply of goods or services or both which are being undertaken outside Maharashtra State by a different and distinct entity. We find no reason to entertain this application. Hence, without going into the merits of the case, the present application of the applicant seeking ruling on questions stated hereinabove is not maintainable and liable for rejection. Application dismissed as not maintainable. - GST-ARA-37/2019-20/B-42 - - - Dated:- 18-3-2020 - MS. P. VINITHA SEKHAR, MR. A. A. CHAHURE, MEMBER PROCEEDINGS (Under Section 98 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017) The present application has been filed under Section 97 of tin Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as the CGST Act and MGST Act respectively] by M/s. APAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED , the appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of goods of heading 8906 OR as Parts of Warship . While placing the orders, MOD, have stated that GST @ 5% will be applicable on the said supply in terms of Sr. No. 252, of Schedule-I of above stated Notification, as these goods (Cables) arc intended to be used in Warship as parts of warship. 2.4 Marine / Pressure Tight Cables / Non Pressure Tight Cables, to be supplied by applicant are a very essential and integral part of warship, without which warship cannot function and cannot be completed and at the same time said goods supplied and used in the warship are capable of being separated as such for the purpose of repairs and replacement and hence as End User Certificate has been issued by the Rear Admiral of Indian Navy / Defence Ministry, certifying therein the intended use of said goods as Parts of Warship vide their File No. HLC/85/PT-10 Cables (32 Types)/S4* dated 10.06.2019. 2.5 The goods supplied to the MOD can be classified under Chapter 8544 in the present case, but when the same is used as parts of goods of Chapter 8906 (warship), benefit cannot be denied since the MOD has also issued an End User Certificate mentioned above. 2.6 In post GST Regime, benefit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir/replacement. 2.9 Further submissions are made by the applicant as follows: 2.9.1 Their Accounting System is centralized and handled/ operated from Mumbai. They have Manufacturing Locations and Warehouses/Depots in various States in India. 2.9.2 Applicant has already supplied the specified goods on inter-state basis from their Factory at UMERGAON, VAPI (Gujarat) under Tax Invoice issue from the factory at VAPI. 2.9.3 The goods in question were specially designed, manufactured for fulfillment of the Defence Department requirement and are supplied from applicant s factory at Umergaon, (Vapi and Gujarat) and as such the Tax Invoice , which must accompany the goods, moved on inter-state basis to Delhi, was issued from the Gujarat State. 2.9.4 Applicant presumes that the lack of jurisdiction of this authority to hear the subject matter is based solely on the ground that the tax invoice- has been issued from VAPI-factory, and as such the State of Gujarat is the State in which the Jurisdiction gets shifted. This would mean that the place/State from where the manufactured goods are removed or moved would alone have jurisdiction to entertain an Application for Adva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities as also the procedure prescribed by the Statute. The AAR cannot either add any new condition, or any procedural requirement beyond those specified in sections 95, 96, 97 or 98 of the MGST Act. 2.9.11 Applicant has further submitted that, as per the provisions of Section 98 (2) of the MGST Act, the only prescription for non-admissibility of the Application is that the question or matter raised before the Authority for Advance Ruling is either decided or pending in any proceedings in the case of the Applicant. Hence, the ground for non-maintainability of the subject application i.e. tax invoice- is/will be issued from a place other than the State of Maharashtra is not acceptable. Applicant states that the AAR does not have any power or authority to add to or modify the proviso or enlarge the scope of the Advance Ruling provisions in any manner. The provisions arc a legislative edict and either the Applicant falls within or is outside the Proviso. 2.9.12 The Advance Ruling Authority is a tribunal having trappings of a Court of law. Broadly, the expression used in various judgments rendered by various Courts is that an Authority would be a Tribunal if it has the tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed under Section 96 of the MGST Act, is an Authority vested with powers and jurisdiction to decide matters brought before it in terms of the Statute, and its orders have finality, subject to appeal, and in exercising these powers has trappings of a court of law, yet it being NOT a court of law, does not have any inherent powers like a Court. Section 106 of the MGST Act clothes this authority with powers to regulate its own procedures, but that is subject to preceding statutory prescriptions . Hence this authority cannot add any condition or burden nor can it ignore any substantive provisions: and if that be the true position in law, this Authority cannot decline to admit the Application on the assumed ground or reason that the Tax Invoice is not generated in the State of Maharashtra and as such it lacks basic, inherent jurisdiction . A deviation from the statutory provisions violates rule of law, and is liable to quashed as bad in law. 2.9.17 Thus the applicant has concluded that; the subject Application for Advance Ruling is in conformity with the statutory requirements and hence it be admitted , and if found non-maintainable then the application may have to be transf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions. Jurisdictional Officer Shri. Sanjay R. Chaudhar, Deputy Commissioner, E-604, LTU-1, Mumbai also appeared and made written and oral submissions. We heard both the sides. 05. DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS 5.1 We have gone through the facts of the case, written contentions made by both, the applicant and jurisdictional officer at the time of preliminary hearing. 5.2 Applicant is registered under the GST ACT in Maharashtra and a few other states of India. Head office (HO) of the applicant is located in Maharashtra State. 5.3. Applicant has submitted that it has received a purchase order from the Defence Machinery Design Establishment (DMDE), under the Ministry of Defence (MOD), Government of India (GOI), Secunderabad for supply of subject goods to be used as Parts of Warship for which an end user certificate has been issued by the appropriate Defense Authority. Hence applicant has approached this authority as to whether they are entitled to concessional rate of GST on the said goods. 5.4 Even though applicant has received the Purchase Order (PC) in the name and address of their Maharashtra office, the subject products are being/will be manufactured in their fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harashtra issued a notification and constituted an Authority to be known as the Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling . The said Government Notification No MGST-1017/CR-193/Taxation-1 dated 24.10.2017, states that For this purpose, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 96 of MGST ACT 2017, (Mah. XLIII, of 2017) the Government of Maharashtra constitutes the Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling for the state of Maharashtra consisting of two members, one from state and another from central jurisdiction. It is therefore very clear that this authority has Seen constituted by an act of the Government only for applicants from Maharashtra. 5.8.2 As per Section 95, this authority shall decide on matters or on questions specified in sub-section (2) of section 97, in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant and Authority means the Authority for Advance Ruling, constituted under Section 96 Thus Section 95 allows this authority only to decide on matters or on questions in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant i.e. in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and undertaking or proposing to undertake supplies from Maharashtra) or on the concerned officer or the jurisdictional officer in respect of the applicant. However, in the subject case the impugned supply is/ will be happening from Gujarat for which the concerned/jurisdictional officer in Gujarat will assess this transaction. All formalities pertaining to GST will be done from Gujarat only. 5.8.5 Considering the provisions of the Chapter XVII of the GST Act, this authority can only pass rulings on supplies being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken from Maharashtra State only. Therefore, this authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the subject application and to interfere in such activity of supply of goods , being carried out from another state. 5.9 Applicant has also cited an Order passed by the Authority for Advance Ruling - Kerala, in case of M/s. Saraswathi Metal Industries = 2018 (7) TMI 142 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, KERALA , Alappuzha in support. 5.9.1 In this connection we find that M/s. Saraswathi Metal Industries, which has undertaken the supply, is situated in Alappuzha, Kerala State and the said order has been passed by the Kerala State Advanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearly marks out jurisdiction for authorities in all States. ft is not open for the AAR in any State to overstep their jurisdiction and pass rulings on applications made by persons who are not undertaking 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 responsibilities 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 entire 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 application 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 A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T Act is a Special Act and CPC is a General Act. For a general act to be made applicable in case of a special act, there should be a provision for the same in the special act. We find that no such provisions have been made in GST Act for making the provisions of CPC applicable in the case of GST. Further, the legal maxim Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant i.e. General things do not derogate from special things reinforces that Special Law always prevails over general law. In this regard we rely upon the judgements of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Anvar P.V. Versus P.K. Basheer as reported in [2017 (352) E.L.T. 416 (S.C.) = 2014 (9) TMI 1007 - SUPREME COURT and Pankajakshi Versus Chandrika as reported in [2017 (345) E.L.T., 438 (S.C.) = 2016 (2) TMI 1063 - SUPREME COURT . 5.17.2 We further find that Hon ble Madras High Court, in the case of India Pistons Limited Versus Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras and Others as reported in [1987 (27) E.L.T. 651 (Mad.)] = 1986 (9) TMI 85 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS has held that Tribunal has no power to transfer a case. Similarly, the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
