In Advance Ruling No. RAJ/AAR/2023-24/05 -AAR- AAR (Rajasthan) rules use of common head office for multiple taxpayers under GST is outside the scope of advance ruling
Members Umesh Kumar Garg (Central Tax) & Mahesh Kumar Gowla (State Tax) [30-06-2023]

Read Order: In Re: M/s Uvee Glass Private Limited

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, August 23, 2023: The Rajasthan bench of the Authority for Advance Rulings has stated that the question of whether a common head office can be utilized for multiple taxpayers under the GST regime falls outside the scope of advance ruling proceedings.

The applicant, who intended to establish M/s Uvee Glass Private Limited for manufacturing toughened, reflective, laminated, secured, and low e glass, had sought an advance ruling on several GST-related matters. These included the eligibility of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on GST paid for the inward supply of structural support of plant and machinery used for producing goods or services, whether a common head office can be used for multiple taxpayers under GST, even if they have separate factory addresses and clarification on whether the time period of 60 days provided under Section 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act), specified in Notification No.13/2017-Central Tax, dated June 28, 2017, refers to the duration from the date of filing the refund application to the date of credit of the refund amount in the taxpayer's bank account.

The two-member bench of Umesh Kumar Garg (Central Tax) and Mahesh Kumar Gowla (State Tax) ruled that the ITC can be claimed on the GST paid for the inward supply of structural support for plant and machinery, provided that this support was utilized for producing goods or services for outward supply.

The bench further determined that the question of whether a common head office can be used for multiple taxpayers under GST, despite having separate factory addresses, fell outside the scope of the Advance Ruling's purpose. The bench stated that the primary objective of an Advance Ruling was to offer advanced clarity on tax liability for future activities. The matter of procedure, including the usage of a common head office, was not within the jurisdiction of the Authority for Advance Ruling.

Lastly, the bench clarified that the time period of 60 days specified in Section 56 of the CGST Act, referred to the duration between the filing date of the application for refund and the actual date when the refund amount was credited to the taxpayer's bank account.