Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC  *  Haryana GST Dept. Directs Physical Intimation of SCNs and Demand Orders By Post Despite Portal Service  *  Service Tax Liability Can’t Be Computed Without Extending Benefit Of Cum-Tax Valuation Where Consideration Received From Customers Was Inclusive Of Service Tax: CESTAT *  CA Certificate and Buyer Confirmation Sufficient to Rebut Unjust Enrichment: CESTAT   *  SEZ Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied for Invoice Discrepancies When Services Were Used for Authorized Operations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation. *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order Denying ITC on Captive Solar Power Plant *  CBIC Continues Tariff Values for Gold, Silver, Edible Oils and Areca Nuts Under Customs Valuation Framework *  Customs Dept. Can’t Deny Exemption Benefits Based On Laboratory Test Reports Not Drawn As Per ISI: CESTAT *  No Service Tax On Reimbursed Salary of Seconded Employee: CESTAT *  Customs Dept. Can’t Deny Exemption Benefits Based On Laboratory Test Reports Not Drawn As Per ISI: CESTAT *  Service Tax Not Payable on Hostel Buildings Rented to Educational Institutions: CESTAT
Subject News *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation *  Assessee Can’t Use Writ Jurisdiction to Bypass GST Appeal Deadline: Allahabad High Court *  Personal Hearing Before Reply Deadline: Uttarakhand HC Quashes GST Assessment Order. *  GST Assessment Order Invalid Where Notice, Reply, Hearing Dates Were Fixed on Same Day: Allahabad High Court *  GST Assessment Order Quashed for Denial of Personal Hearing Despite Taxpayer Opting ‘No’ in DRC-06: Gujarat High Court *  Reversal of CENVAT Credit Equals Non-Availment: CESTAT *  Rule 9(1)(bb) Can’t Be Invoked to Deny CENVAT Credit When Penalty Proceedings Fail: CESTAT *  • Customs Duty Exemption on Edible-Grade Oils Used in Cosmetics: CESTAT  *  Bona Fide Purchaser Can’t Be Denied ITC Merely For Seller’s Deposit Tax Failure: Gauhati High Court   

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST update /2026-27/0047

M/s SAFETY CONTROLS & DEVICES LIMITED
Hon’ble Authority: RAJASTHAN AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING
Name of the applicant: M/s SAFETY CONTROLS & DEVICES LIMITED
Ruling No.: ADVANCE RULING NO. RAJ/AAR/2025-26/18
Bench Utkarsha Joint Commissioner Member (Central Tax) & Dr. Akhedan Charan Additional Commissioner Member (State Tax)
Date of Ruling 17-12.2025
Outcome Partly in favour of the Applicant
 

Brief Facts of the Case

M/s Safety Controls & Devices Limited, the Applicant is a company registered under GST in the State of Uttar Pradesh, with its registered office in State of Uttar Pradesh. The Applicant was awarded a contract by M/s National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (NTPC) for construction of a substation under the 'Substation Package for 945 MVA Capacity for Power Evacuation from Solar PVR Projects at Bikaner, Rajasthan' wherein the land for construction of the substation is to be provided by NTPC. The substation, upon completion of construction, shall become the property of NTPC. The Applicant has no right or interest in the substation after completion.In this regard, the applicant purchases equipment from Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) and other vendors on FOR (Freight on Road) site basis, and the material is directly supplied by the vendor to the project site at Rajasthan. However, all contractual, billing, and management activities are conducted from the registered office at Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.The Applicant does not have any fixed establishment or office in the State of Rajasthan. In this regard, the applicant sought Advance Ruling regarding separate registration requirement in State of Rajasthan and also on tax treatment of inward supplies.
The application was initially rejected by the Rajasthan AAR on the ground that the Applicant was already registered in Uttar Pradesh. On appeal, the Rajasthan AAAR set aside the ruling and remanded the matter, holding that registration in another State was irrelevant to the issue of registration in Rajasthan pursuant to which, the present ruling was passed on 17.12.2025 after consideration on merits.

Relevant Section

  • Section 22 of CGST Act 2017
  • Section 2(71) of CGST Act 2017
  • Section 10(1) of the IGST Act 2017
  • Section 12(3) of the IGST Act, 2017     

Question before Hon’ble Authority

The Ruling was sought on two questions:
  • Can the applicant continue making inter-State supplies from its Uttar Pradesh registration or separate registration is required in the State of Rajasthan?
 
  • What shall be the Tax treatment of inward supplies where:
i)  Goods are supplied from Uttar Pradesh to Rajasthan.
ii) Goods are procured and delivered within Rajasthan.

Brief Arguments by Applicant

Regarding Separate registration in Rajasthan
The applicant contended that no separate GST registration is required in Rajasthan. Reliance was placed on Section 22 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 2(71), which defines the "location of supplier of services." It was argued that the applicant's principal place of business is in Uttar Pradesh and the works contract services are supplied from that registered place of business. Since no fixed establishment or office exists in Rajasthan, the location of the supplier continues to be Uttar Pradesh. Although the place of supply for works contract services is Rajasthan, being the location of the immovable property, the applicant submitted that the place of supply alone does not create an obligation to obtain registration in Rajasthan.
Regarding tax on Inward Supplies
The applicant contended that the applicable tax on procurement of goods should depend upon the mode of procurement. Where goods are purchased from a supplier in Uttar Pradesh and are directly dispatched to the project site in Rajasthan on the applicant's instructions, the transaction is covered by Section 10(1)(b) of the IGST Act as a 'bill-to ship-to' transaction, and accordingly the supplier should levy CGST and SGST of Uttar Pradesh.
Conversely, where goods are purchased from a supplier located in Rajasthan and delivered within Rajasthan, then IGST should be charged in terms of Section 10(1)(b) of the IGST Act 2017.

Findings and Judgement

Regarding Registration Requirement in Rajasthan
The Authority analyzed the following provisions in light of the facts:
Section 22(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 mandates registration in the State from where taxable supplies are made, subject to turnover threshold.  Further, Section 2(71) of the CGST Act, 2017 defines the 'location of supplier of services' which is the place of business for which registration has been obtained, or in case of a fixed establishment elsewhere, the location of such fixed establishment. In the present case, the Applicant has not established any office or fixed establishment in Rajasthan. All contractual, billing, and management activities are carried out from Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
 
Accordingly, it was ruled that the 'location of supplier' for SCDL is Uttar Pradesh. Registration in Rajasthan is not required merely because the construction site is situated in Rajasthan
 
Regarding tax treatment of Supplies
It was held that
  • Where goods involve movement from Uttar Pradesh to the project site at Rajasthan: Such supply constitutes an inter-state supply and shall be liable to IGST under the IGST Act, 2017.
  • Where both the supplier and the recipient are located within Rajasthan and delivery is made within the State: Such supply constitutes an intra-state supply and CGST and SGST shall apply.
 

Opinion

Author’s Comment

Although, by virtue of Section 103 of the CGST Act, 2017, an advance ruling is binding only on the applicant who sought the ruling and the concerned jurisdictional officer, however, the legal interpretation adopted therein carries significant value and is likely to be relied upon by taxpayers and tax authorities in similar situations across the country. The present ruling provides much-needed clarity on the requirement of obtaining a separate GST registration in Rajasthan where a person undertakes taxable supplies from the State despite already being registered in another State. The AAR has clarified that the "location of supplier of services" under Section 2(71) of the CGST Act is linked to the place of business for which registration has been obtained or the fixed establishment from which the supply is made. Consequently, the taxpayer is not required to obtain separate registration in another state only for the reason that the work/ site is located in another State.
The ruling also settles the tax treatment of local procurements and supplies within Rajasthan. Where both the supplier and the recipient are located in Rajasthan and the goods are delivered within Rajasthan, the transaction constitutes an intra-State supply liable to CGST and Rajasthan SGST, notwithstanding that the recipient is registered only in Uttar Pradesh.
However, one significant practical issue remains unresolved. While the ruling clarifies that local Rajasthan GST is payable on such transactions, it does not address the mechanism through which a person holding registration only in Uttar Pradesh can avail input tax credit of the Rajasthan CGST and SGST charged on such procurements. This continuing uncertainty reinforces the practical necessity of obtaining a separate GST registration in Rajasthan to ensure seamless credit flow.
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com