Advance Ruling— The present application has been filed by M/s. CHEP INDIA PVT LTD, the applicant, seeking an advance ruling in respect of the following questions.-

1. Whether the pallets, crates and containers (hereinafter referred as “equipment”) leased by CHEP India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “CIPL” or “the Applicant”) located and registered in Maharashtra to its other GST registrations located across India (say CIPL Karnataka), would be considered as lease transaction and accordingly taxable as supply of services in terms of Section 7 of the CGST Act and MGST Act?

2. If the answer to Question 1 is yes, what is the value on which GST has to be charged i.e. whether it should be lease charges or the value of equipment in terms of Section 15 of the CGST Act and MGST Act read with relevant Rules?

3. What are the documents that should accompany the movement of the goods from CIPL, Maharashtra to CIPL, Karnataka?

4. Whether movement of leased equipment from CIPL, Karnataka to CIPL, Tamil Nadu on the instruction of CIPL, Maharashtra can be said to be mere movement of goods not amounting to a supply in terms of Section 7 of the CGST Act and MGST Act, and thereby not liable to GST?

5. With reference to Question 4 above, what are the documents that should accompany the movement of the goods from CIPL, Karnataka to CIPL, Tamil Nadu?

Held that— The pallets, crates and containers leased by CHEP India Private Limited located and registered in Maharashtra to its other GST registrations located across India would be considered as lease transaction and accordingly taxable as supply of services in terms of Section 7 of the CGST Act and MGST Act.

Since, this business model is yet not operational and how it will become operational is not known, we do not have any actual facts and figures to answer this question. This question becomes more like hypothetical question.

Question no. 3 and 5 are not admitted, so not answered.

If the situs of transaction in question is not within the state of Maharashtra, then as per provisions of section 96 of the Central Goods and service Tax Act 2017 (and similar provision under the MGST Act), the Maharashtra Advance Ruling Authority cannot acquire the jurisdiction over the questions raised, hence no ruling can be given on this question.