Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

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