/** * The main template file * * This is the most generic template file in a WordPress theme * and one of the two required files for a theme (the other being style.css). * It is used to display a page when nothing more specific matches a query. * E.g., it puts together the home page when no home.php file exists. * * @link https://developer.wordpress.org/themes/basics/template-hierarchy/ * * @package WordPress * @subpackage Tally * @since 1.0.0 */ ?>
In M/s Kamdhenu Agrochem Industries LLP [GST-ARA-112/2019-20/B-87 dated February 24, 2020], Hon’ble Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling (“MAAR”) held that in a case where imported goods are sold and delivered directly from Container Freight Station (“CFS”) / Direct Port Delivery (“DPD”) to a state different from the state where assessee is registered, the assessee need not take a separate registration in that state.
M/s Kamdhenu Agrochem Industries LLP (“the Applicant”) has sought an advance ruling on, whether the Applicant registered in Maharashtra is required to take registration in importing states other than Maharashtra, if goods are imported, sold and delivered directly from CFS / DPD which is under the Custom boundaries to customers from those states, as per Section 22 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”).
MAAR observed that, the above mentioned question pertains to situation where imported goods are sold by the Applicant before the Bill of Entry (“BOE”) is filed or before the goods are cleared for home consumption on payment of Custom Duty and Integrated Goods and Services Tax (“IGST”) as per Section 7(2) of the IGST Act, 2017 (“IGST Act”) and Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962.
It is an established fact that, as per Section 11(a) of IGST Act, in respect of goods imported the place of supply (“POS”) is location of the importer and not the place of the delivery of goods.
Held that, as the Applicant is registered in Mumbai the POS will be Maharashtra and further observed that as the Applicant is selling goods to M/s. Greenpanel Industries Ltd, having an establishment in state of Andhra Pradesh, before clearing the same for home consumption from the port of import, the POS will be the place from where the Applicant makes a taxable supply of goods which in present case will be Maharashtra.
Held that, the Applicant need not take a separate registration and can supply the goods on the basis of invoice issued by Maharashtra Office.
AAR, Maharashtra in the matter of M/s Sonkamal Enterprises Private Limited [Advance Ruling No. GST AAR-48/2018-19/B-123, dated September 27, 2018] took a similar view that since the Applicant has no establishment or place of operation or any godown or GST registration in the state of West Bengal, i.e. the port of import, the applicant can clear the goods on the basis of invoice issued by the Mumbai head office and therefore need not take separate registration in the state of West Bengal.
Similarly, AAR Maharashtra in the matter of M/s. Aarel Import Export Pvt. Ltd. [Advance Ruling No. GST AAR-114/2018-19/B-42, April 24, 2019] held that as per Section 11(a) of the IGST Act when goods are imported into Odisha, the POS of goods shall be the location of the importer, i.e. Mumbai, Maharashtra and further held that the Applicant need not take any separate registration in Odisha to facilitate the taxable supply of goods through Mumbai head office.
In our view, relying on the decision of various precedents, it can be construed that the importer, registered in a state different from the state of import of goods need not take separate registration in that state and can supply the goods on the basis of invoice issued by the head office located in the state of registration.
(Author can be reached at email@example.com)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
In M/s Mahavir Nagar Shiv Srushti Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. [GST-ARA-19/2021-22/B-94 dated November 10, 2021] Hon’ble Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling (“MAAR”) held that repairs,
In M/s Alcoats [KAR ADRG 62/2021 dated October 29, 2021] Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling (“KAAR”) held that job work services undertaken by M/s Alcoats (“the Applicant”) by way of treatment
In Jenefa India vs. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(MD) No.16770/2019 decided on October 5, 2021] Hon’ble Madras High Court upheld the validity of Sl. No.102 of Notification No. 2/2017 dated June 28, 2017
The Hon’ble Gujarat Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling(“the Gujarat AAAR”) in the matter of M/s. Sterlite Technologies Limited [Advance Ruling (Appeal No. GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2021/13 dated March
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court (“Bombay HC”) in the matter of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. [WRIT PETITION NO. 3226 OF 2019 dated October 29, 2021], quashed the Show Cause