Remote Service Provision Through Field Engineers Does

Remote Service Provision Through Field Engineers Does Not Constitute A Fixed Place Of Business.

Issue

Whether a company headquartered in Maharashtra is required to obtain GST registration in Odisha solely because it provides repair and maintenance services (AMC/CMC) through Field Service Engineers (FSEs) and maintains temporary tool storage in that state.

Facts

The Appellant is a Maharashtra-based company engaged in pan-India trading of laboratory equipment.
They provide repair and maintenance services to customers in Odisha through Field Service Engineers (FSEs).
All contracts, invoicing, inventory management, and financial transactions are handled exclusively by the Head Office (HO) in Maharashtra.
In Odisha, the company’s presence is limited to the physical presence of FSEs and the temporary storage of spare parts and tool kits.
The Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) initially ruled that these activities constituted a “Place of Business” and a “Fixed Establishment,” necessitating registration in Odisha.

Decision

Place of Business: The Appellate Authority held that “location of supplier” refers to the place of business from which the supply is made. Since all invoices and agreements originate from the Maharashtra HO, and there is no separate administrative setup in Odisha, the HO remains the sole place of business.
Fixed Establishment: A “Fixed Establishment” requires a sufficient degree of permanence and a suitable structure of human and technical resources. The Court noted that the FSEs are mobile and the post-sale services could be handled by engineers from any location; thus, the “permanence” required under Section 2(50) was absent.
Registration: Under Section 22, a person is liable for registration in the state from which they make a taxable supply. Since the supply of services is legally and administratively made from Maharashtra, no separate registration is required in Odisha.

Key Takeaways

Administrative Control Matters: The mere presence of employees (FSEs) in a state does not create a “Place of Business” if the commercial and administrative control remains with a Head Office in another state.
Permanence Criterion: Temporary storage of tools or spare parts lacks the “sufficient degree of permanence” and “suitable structure” necessary to qualify as a Fixed Establishment.
Invoicing Source: The origin of the tax invoice and the location of the contract execution are primary indicators for determining the “Location of the Supplier” for GST purposes.

APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING , ODISHA

Thermo Fisher Scientific India (P.) Ltd., In re*

P. R. LAKRA and Ms. Yamini Sarangi, Member

Order No. 02/Odisha–AAAR/Appeal/2025-26

JANUARY 9, 2026

Hasti Shah, Manager Taxation, Ritesh Gyanchandani and Vikash Agarwal, Authorized Representatives for the Applicant.

ORDER

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

(At the outset we would like to make it clear that the provisions of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are in pari materia and have same provisions in like matter and differ from each other only on a few specific provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is particularly made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the CGST Act would also mean reference to the corresponding similar provisions in the OGST Act.)

1. The present appeal has been filed, under section 100 of the Central Goods and Services tax Act, 2017 and Orissa Goods & Services Tax Act 2017 [hereinafter referred to as the CGST Act and OGST Act] by M/s. Thermo Fisher Scientific India Private Limited having Principal Place of Business at 251/527 Plot 48/1012 Khata, Autosave Financial Services Pvt Ltd, Sadhu Vihar, Dhauli Chhaka, Sardeipur, Infront of Central Bank Of India, Bhubaneswar, Khordha, Odisha, 751002 and address of correspondence at 3rd Floor, 309, DLF Cyber City, Patia, Bhubaneshwar, Khordha, Odisha, and bearing GSTIN 21AABCT3207A1ZB (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellant’) against the Thermo Fisher Scientific India (P.) Ltd., In re (AAR – ODISHA)/Advance Ruling ORDER No. 5/ODISHA-AAR/2025-26 dated 11.07.2025 pronounced by the Odisha Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR). The date of receipt of the physical appeal application is 19.08.2025. However, the appellant vide email dated 12.08.2025 has submitted that as the AAR order could has not been uploaded on the GST portal, they are not able to file the appeal electronically and submitted physical submission on 19.08.2025 and requested for acceptance of the appeal submitted through e-mail.

2. In the instant case, the Appellant M/s. Thermo Fisher Scientific India Private Limited having GSTIN No. 21AABCT3207A1ZB is a Private Limited Company filed an application for Advance Ruling on 28.02.2025. The Appellant submitted that they are engaged in pan-India trading of analytical and laboratory equipment and is registered under the CGST Act in both Maharashtra (Head Office) and Odisha. In addition to sales, the company provides repair and maintenance services to customers in Odisha under Annual and Comprehensive Maintenance Contracts (AMC/CMC) with all contracts, invoicing and inventory management handled by the Head Office in Maharashtra.

2.1 Further, to ensure timely service, especially for critical sectors like healthcare, the appellant deploys Field Services Engineers (FSEs) in Odisha for repair and maintenance of the equipments to ensure timely service and prevent operational disruptions of the client. The repair and maintenance is performed by Appellant through AMC or CMC plan as opted by the clients. A customer in Odisha purchasing goods from the Appellant’s Head Office (HO) opts for AMC (Annual Maintenance Contract) and Comprehensive Maintenance Contract (CMC) plan for repair and maintenance of the goods sold.

2.2 The Customer enters into an agreement with the Appellant’s HO for this CMC or AMC plan for repair and maintenance of the equipments sold by the appellant. AMC plan covers cost of service whereas CMC plan covers cost of service including the cost of spare parts that may need to be replaced. The invoices are raised by the HO of the Appellant located in Maharashtra. The HO reports the transaction details in their respective GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B returns in the State of Maharashtra.

2.3 On instruction of HO in Maharashtra, the FSE in Odisha, who are employees of the company, visits the Customer’s location to inspect the goods. On inspection, if any spare parts need to be replaced, a request is raised with the HO of the Appellant in Maharashtra and the HO arranges for the required spare parts to be dispatched from Mother Warehouse located in Bhiwandi, Maharashtra either directly to Customer’s location in Odisha or to the FSE’s location in Odisha with the billing address remaining the same as the Customer’s address in both cases.

2.4 The Appellant does not maintain any stock in Odisha, except for a temporary storage of leftover spare parts under the CMC plan, which is shipped to FSE’s location and billed to Customer’s location. The leftover spare parts are minimal in quantity. All the stocks of the appellant are stored the Appellant’s HO at Bhiwandi, Maharashtra.

2.5 To facilitate efficient service execution, the HO of the Appellant ensures that FSEs have access to the requisite tools for service performance. However, such access is strictly for operational purposes and does not signify any independent business or fixed establishment in Odisha. The deployment of FSE in Odisha does not alter the nature of the service provided, as the same activity would be undertaken even if an FSE were to travel from HO to Odisha.

2.6 The Appellant had filed application before the Odisha Authority for Advance Ruling on 28.02.2025 seeking certain clarifications. To which the AAR has passed the following Ruling on the clarifications sought:

Q.1: Whether the repair and maintenance services provided by the Head Office in Maharashtra through Filed Service Engineers for maintenance contracts with customers in Odisha constitute a place of business in Odisha?

Ans: Affirmative.

Q.2: Whether the temporary storage of spare parts and tool kit at Applicant’s location constitute a place of business?

Ans: Affirmative.

Q.3: Whether Applicant’s location would constitute “fixed establishment”?

Ans: Affirmative.

Q.4: If the answer to question (a), (b) and (c) is No, whether the Applicant is required to take GST registration in Odisha?

Ans: Affirmative.

3. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Authority for Advance Ruling, Odisha, the appellant has filed an appeal on 19.08.2025 before the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Odisha.

4. Submissions of the Appellant: The appellant has submitted that the impugned order (AAR) does not adequately address the detailed written submissions filed with the application or the clarifications provided during the online hearing.

4.1 The appellant submitted that all the contracts of AMC/CMC with the customers in Odisha are entered into by the HO located in Maharashtra. The appellant does not enter into any such contracts with the customers located in Odisha. Also, the tax invoices for AMC/CMC services are raised by the HO and the consideration against these services is received by HO and the Appellant does not raise any separate invoice against these contracts.

4.2 The FSEs are employees of the company and are deployed by the HO. The Appellant does not independently employ or contract with the FSEs for the purpose of entering into or fulfilling AMC/CMC contracts.

4.3 As per Section 2(71) of the Act, the “location of supplier of services” is the place of business establishment most directly concerned with the supply. In the present case, all the contracts are executed by the HO in Maharashtra, all invoices are issued from HO and considerations are received there at HO. The Appellant’s establishment in Odisha merely executes the HO’s contractual obligations and does not operate as an independent place of business for these supplies.

4.4 The supply of repair and maintenance services is deemed to have been made at the time of agreeing to provide the services, which is when the AMC/CMC plan is sold. The tax liability is thus crystallized at the time of receipt of consideration and issuance of an invoice by the HO in Maharashtra, ensuring compliance with the time of supply under provisions of GST law.

4.5 Under the CMC contract, the repair and maintenance service, inclusive of spare parts, is agreed upon and invoiced upfront by the HO in Maharashtra. In contrast, in AMC plan, which covers only the service element, the customer may subsequently request replacement of specific spare parts not covered under the AMC, for which an additional consideration is charged. Such replacement constitutes a distinct and independent supply of goods, initiated only upon the customer’s request. In all such cases, the supply is effected by the HO in Maharashtra.

4.6 Further, the Appellant has submitted that mere presence of FSEs in Odisha or the temporary holding of tool kit or trunk stock (unused spare parts, generally returned to the HO within 27 days) does not alter the place of supply of the replacement parts. The supply of spare parts is not determined by the FSEs location or the storage of tools in Odisha; it is solely contingent upon the customer’s request and is fulfilled by the HO in Maharashtra. The positioning of FSEs in Odisha is an operational measure to ensure timely service and does not create a separate supply or a place of business in Odisha for the purpose of the supply of goods.

4.7 The Appellant submitted that they do not maintain any stock in Odisha as a matter of course. All goods and spare parts are stored at the HO’s Mother Warehouse in Bhiwandi, Maharashtra. Spare parts are dispatched to Odisha only upon specific requests from customers and always under the instructions and control of the HO. It is only rare cases, for operational efficiency, that some spare parts which remain unused after a service visit are temporarily retained by the FSEs in Odisha, which is a matter of practical necessity to avoid the cost and delay of returning small, unused parts to Maharashtra, especially when further service calls may be anticipated. This practice is not indicative of the Appellant “ordinarily carrying on business” or maintaining a warehouse or godown in Odisha rather it is a transient incidental arrangement solely to ensure timely service to customers.

4.8 It is pertinent to note that the definition of “place of business” starts with the phrase ‘includes’ and thus the places or locations listed in the definition are illustrative and not exhaustive. Further, each of the three clauses in the definition makes a reference to ‘taxable person’ which means that the place of business is relevant only in regard to taxable person i.e. a person who is already registered or is liable to take registration.

4.9 The Appellant also placed reliance on the following cases:

•

Pachaiammal v. Hindustan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd., Madras (1940): In this case, an insurance company having its head office in Calcutta, where all contracts were formalized, and a branch office in Madras. The court ruled that the company carries on business where it enters into contracts (Calcutta), not at branch locations that only handle ancillary tasks or canvass for business.

•

Municipal Council of Cocanada v. ‘Clam’ Line Steamers, Ltd. (1919): A steamer company that loaded and unloaded goods at Cocanada but had all its shipping contracts executed in Madras was assessed for tax in Cocanada. The court determined that the company was not carrying on business in Cocanada because no contracts were made there. This established that the place where contracts are finalized is the location

•

T & D Electricals, In re GST 542/[2020] 33 GSTL 286 (AAR – RAJASTHAN): A works contractor registered under GST in Rajasthan was awarded a contract to be executed in Karnataka. The Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) in Karnataka held that since the contractor did not have a fixed establishment in Karnataka and was supplying from their principal place of business in Rajasthan, a separate GST registration in Karnataka was not required.

•

The Appellant also relied on the ruling of the Authority for Advance Ruling, Odisha in the case of Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd., In re GST 93 (AAR – ODISHA), wherein the authorities stated that registration is required in the State “from where” the supply is made, not “where” the supply is received.

4.10 The Appellant also stated that the AAR has erred in invoking clause (c) of definition of “place of business” u/s. 2(85) of the CGST Act wherein the authority appears to have concluded that the presence of FSEs in Odisha, is tantamount to HO carrying business through an agent in the State. The Appellant stated that the FSEs stationed in Odisha are not agents of the HO in any sense contemplated by the Act, rather they are employees of the company, acting strictly under the instructions and control of the HO. The AAR has overlooked the transient and incidental nature of such storage, as well as the absence of any independent business activity or contractual from the Odisha location.

4.11 The Appellant reiterated that the FSEs are present in Odisha only for better operational efficiency and to shorten the delivery time. The spare parts and tool kits stored with the FSEs are not stored at inventory for further supply or sale but are merely held for a short duration to facilitate prompt service to customers. The main warehouse and all inventory control remain with the HO in Maharashtra. The FSEs are not stationed at any premises owned or controlled by the Appellant nor is there any infrastructure or administrative set up in Odisha. The arrangement is purely for operational efficiency and does not qualify as fixed establishment. The Appellant cited reliance on one Advance Ruling in case of Gandhar Oil Refinery (India) Ltd., In re GST 446/26 GSTL 531 (AAR – MAHARASHTRA).

Personal Hearing:

The Appellant was called for personal hearing on 26.09.2025 through virtual mode. The hearing was conducted on 26.09.2025 and represented by Shri Hasti Shah, Manager-Taxation, Shri Ritesh Gyanchandani and Shri Vikash Agarwal, both Authorized Representatives of the Appellant. During the course of hearing, Shri Shah, drew attention to the earlier submissions made in the application and inter alia stated the following:

•

The appellant is a service provider and provides services under AMC and CMC plan to their clients. The Head Office (H.O) of the appellant which is at Mumbai, issues invoices to the Customers in Odisha as per the Agreements.

•

Once request is raised by the Customer, the HO sends FSE (Field Service Engineers) to the Client/Customer’s place. The FSE visits the clients and attends the issue. Under the CMC plan, where there is requirement of replacement of spare parts, the HO despatches the necessary spare parts to FSE’s location or the Customer’s location with delivery challan and generates e-way bill for movement of goods from Maharashtra to Odisha. After replacement, the unused spare parts are returned to the HO by the FSE.

•

The appellant drew attention to Para 5.6 of the ruling in the case of M/s. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. in AAR, Odisha, for reference.

•

Additionally, the appellant stated that they do not have any physical permanence in the State of Odisha and therefore not required registration in Odisha.

The Member (State) questioned if any other registrations of the appellant are active and secondly, why did the appellant prefer AAAR as they have active registration in Odisha, to which, Shri Shah stated that they have active registration’s in other States also. However, as they have GST compliance at their Head Office in the State of Maharashtra and they do not have any physical permanency in other States, they want to surrender the existing GSTINs in those States in order to avoid compliances and complexity of GST.

The Member (Centre) questioned if any other applications are pending on the same issue by M/s. Thermo Fisher Scientific India Pvt. Ltd. in any other AAR/AAAR forum, to which Shri Shah stated that they have one pending AAR application on the same issue with AAR, Karnataka which is pending for personal hearing.

DISCUSSION & FINDINGS

5. We have gone through the records of the case, the written submissions made by the Petitioner and submission made by the authorized representatives of the Petitioner during the personal hearing through virtual mode on 26.09.2025.

5.1 The AAR order was communicated on 11.07.2025. The date of receipt of the physical appeal application is 19.08.2025. So, there is a delay of 6 days in filing the Appeal. However, the appellant vide email dated 12.08.2025 has submitted that as the AAR order could has not been uploaded on the GST portal, they are not able to file the appeal electronically and submitted physical submission on 19.08.2025 and requested for acceptance of the appeal submitted through e-mail. Considering the submissions of the Appellant, the delay in filing of appeal is accepted in exercise of the power vested in terms of the proviso to Section 100(2) of the CGST Act.

5.2 The issue before us is to decide on the following three aspects:

(i)

Whether the repair and maintenance services provided by the Head Office of the Appellant which is in Maharashtra through Field Service Engineer under Annual Maintenance Contract or Comprehensive Maintenance Contracts with the Customers in Odisha constitute a ‘Place of Business’ in Odisha under Section 2(85) of the CGST Act;

(ii)

Whether temporary storage of spare parts and tool kit at the Appellant’s location in Odisha constitute a ‘Place of Business’ under Section 2(85) or a ‘Fixed Establishment’ under Section 2(50) of the CGST Act;

(iii)

Whether the Appellant is required to obtain separate GST registration on Odisha solely on account of the activities performed by them Odisha.

5.3 On the outset, ‘Place of Business’ is defined under definition under Section 2(85) of CGST Act, which is reproduced below:

Section 2(85) Place of business includes-

(a)

a place from where the business is ordinarily carried on, and includes a warehouse, a godown or any other place where a taxable person stores his goods, supplies or receives goods or services or both; or

(b)

a place where a taxable person maintains his books of account; or

(c)

a place where a taxable person is engaged in business through an agent, by whatever name called;

So, the definition of ‘place of business’ is inclusive which categorises that either of the three things, if happens, in case of a place, then the said place is to be defined as ‘place of business’ under GST.

5.3.1 First of all, the definition states that a place from where the business ordinarily runs or operates which includes warehouse, godown or place where the taxable person stores his goods is to be treated as a place of business. The Appellant submitted that the place of business is relevant to the taxable person only. But ‘taxable person’ as defined in Section 2(107) of the CGST Act, means a person who is registered or liable to be registered under Section 22 or 24 of the Act. In the present case, the Appellant is registered under the provisions of GST Act and therefore the Appellant is a taxable person for the said purpose. The point of discussion is whether the services provided by Head Office (HO) of the Appellant through the FSEs (Field Service Engineers) in Odisha would constitute place of business or not.

The definition of ‘Place of Business’ also refers to a place from where the business ordinarily runs or operates; So the location of supplier from where it runs the business is vital while determining ‘Place of Business’ of an entity. Section 2(71) of the CGST Act, defines location of supplier of service’ as below:

“location of the supplier of services” means,-

(a) where a supply is made from a place of business for which the registration has been obtained, the location of such place of business;

(b) where a supply is made from a place other than the place of business for which registration has been obtained (a fixed establishment elsewhere), the location of such fixed establishment;

(c) where a supply is made from more than one establishment, whether the place of business or fixed establishment, the location of the establishment most directly concerned with the provisions of the supply; and

(d) in absence of such places, the location of the usual place of residence of the supplier;

From a combined reading of the definition of “location of Services” and “Place of Business”, it can be inferred that location of services means the location of such place of business or fixed establishment from where the supply is made.

On going through the invoices of AMC/CMC issued by the Appellant Company and the Work Order/purchase Order submitted by the Appellant, we observe that all the agreements are made between the HO of the Appellant which is located in Maharashtra (bearing a different GSTIN) and the customers in Odisha. So, there is no transaction between the Appellant (treating them as a different entity from the HO) and the customers in Odisha. Further, the FSEs of the Appellant Company provide service to the customers on the direction of the HO and there is no separate administrative set up of the Appellant Company in Odisha. Thus, it transpires that the location of the supplier, in this case is in Maharashtra and not in Odisha. So, it appears the business is carried on from their HO.

The Appellant in their ‘Fact of the Case’ (Para 1.7) has submitted that they do not maintain any stock in Odisha except for a temporary storage (i.e., trunk stock) of leftover spare parts under CMC (Comprehensive Maintenance Contract) plan which is shipped to FSE’s location and billed to customer’s location. The spare parts involved are minimal in quantity and compact in size. Further, in Para C.4 of ‘Grounds of Appeal’, the Appellant submits that it is only in rare cases, for operational efficiency, that some spare parts which remain unused after a service visit are temporarily retained by the FSE in Odisha. This is a matter of practical necessity, to avoid the cost and delay of returning small, unused parts to Maharashtra, especially when further service call may be anticipated.

Before discussing the issue as described in Fact of the Case’ (Para 1.7) and Grounds of Appeal (Para C.4), it is pertinent to discuss about the services provided the Appellate Company to the Customers in Odisha. The Appellant Company provides post-sale service to the Customers under two different plans i.e. AMC (Annual Maintenance Contract) and CMC. The AMC plan covers cost of service whereas CMC plan covers cost of service including cost of spare parts that may need to be replaced.

Under the AMC plan, after inspection of the goods by the FSE and identification of the replacement of faulty spare parts, the customer contacts HO of the Appellant for supply of spare parts which is accordingly, dispatched from their warehouse in Bhiwandi, Maharashtra to the Customer’s location. The Appellant issues tax invoices and generates e-way bill as per the provisions of the Act.

Under the CMC plan, after inspection of the goods by the FSE and identification of the replacement of faulty spare parts, the HO of the Appellant dispatches the required parts to the location of the customer or FSE through Delivery Challan. The cost of the spare parts are covered in the CMC Plan and already recovered from the customer under the plan. The unused spare parts, if any, are returned by the FSE to the mother warehouse within 27 days or at most 60 days of issue.

From the above, it appears that the Appellant is a supplier of service and provides post-sale service to their clients. The stock which is referred to by the Appellant in above paras are the leftover spare parts retained by the FSEs after service visit, more specifically the leftover spare parts under CMC plan. Therefore, the goods retained by the FSE of the Appellant are not trading rather incidental in nature.

In view of above discussions, it appears that the Condition (a) of Section 2(85) i.e. Place of Business does not apply to the Appellant.

5.3.2 Further, as submitted by the Appellant, all the agreements are made from the HO and the payment is received by the HO. Accordingly, HO receives the consideration and discharges GST on it. So no books of account are maintained by the Appellant in Odisha separately.

5.3.3 Agent as defined in definitions of Section 2(5) of the CGST Act, is reproduced below:

(5) “agent” means a person, including a factor, broker, commission agent, arhatia, del credere agent, an auctioneer or any other mercantile agent, by whatever name called, who carries on the business of supply or receipt of goods or services or both on behalf of another.”

The FSEs provides the post-sale repair and maintenance services to the customers in Odisha as employees of the company. That does not tantamount to providing services on behalf of the Appellant Company. The FSEs provide services of AMC or CMC to the clients as per the agreements entered into by the HO of the Appellant. These FSEs do not enter into any contracts/agreements directly with the customers. Also, the FSEs do not carry out the businesses on their own with the customers. If the HO of the Appellant terminates any agreement or contract with the customers in Odisha, the FSE services are also no longer available to the customers. Therefore, the FSEs which work as the service engineers of the Appellant company cannot be termed as ‘agent’ of the Appellant.

So, we find, repair and maintenance services provided by the HO of the Appellant through FSEs in Odisha do not constitute ‘Place of Business’ under Section 2(85) of CGST Act as per the three conditions as prescribed in the definition.

5.4 Section 2(50) defines “fixed establishment” as (50) “fixed establishment” means a place (other than the registered place of business) which is characterized by a sufficient degree of permanence and suitable structure in terms of human and technical resources to supply services, or to receive and use services for its own needs;

Therefore, “Fixed Establishment” means a place (other than the registered place of business) which is characterised by

– a sufficient degree of permanence and

– suitable structure in terms of human and technical resources to supply services, or to receive and use services for its own needs.

So, Fixed Establishment’ is exclusively for the supplier of services and related to the place other than the registered place. The Appellant is a service provider who operates from their HO in Mumbai with all agreements and financial transactions being made from the HO of the Appellant. The services provided by the Appellant are performed through their Field Service Engineers who are employees of the Appellant Company. In the State of Odisha, the presence of the Appellant Company is through their FSEs only. The post-sale service provided by the Appellant Company can also be met with other FSEs located elsewhere in India. Therefore, the permanence of the Appellant in the State of Odish is not noticed due to the fact that all the transactions are conducted from the HO of the Appellate Company.

5.5 Further, the Appellant sought ruling on whether they are liable to be registered. Sections 22 and 24 of CGST/OGST Act, 2017 covers provisions regarding person who are liable to be registered in GST which reads as follows:

Section 22. Persons liable for registration.-

(1) Every supplier shall be liable to be registered under this Act in the State or Union territory, other than special category States, from where he makes a taxable supply of goods or services or both, if his aggregate turnover in a financial year exceeds twenty lakh rupees:

Provided that where such person makes taxable supplies of goods or services or both from any of the special category States, he shall be liable to be registered if his aggregate turnover in a financial year exceeds ten lakh rupees:

1[Provided further that the Government may, at the request of a special category State and on the recommendations of the Council, enhance the aggregate turnover referred to in the first proviso from ten lakh rupees to such amount, not exceeding twenty lakh rupees and subject to such conditions and limitations, as may be so notified:]

2[Provided also that the Government may, at the request of a State and on the recommendations of the Council, enhance the aggregate turnover from twenty lakh rupees to such amount not exceeding forty lakh rupees in case of supplier who is engaged exclusively in the supply of goods, subject to such conditions and limitations, as may be notified:

Explanation. For the purposes of this sub-section, a person shall be considered to be engaged exclusively in the supply of goods even if he is engaged in exempt supply of services provided by way of extending deposits, loans or advances in so far as the consideration is represented by way of interest or discount.

Section 24. Compulsory registration in certain cases.-

Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of section 22, the following categories of persons shall be required to be registered under this Act,-

(i)

persons making any inter-State taxable supply;

(ii)

casual taxable persons making taxable supply;

(iii)

persons who are required to pay tax under reverse charge;

(iv)

person who are required to pay tax under sub-section (5) of section 9;

(v)

non-resident taxable persons making taxable supply;

(vi)

persons who are required to deduct tax under section 51, whether or not separately registered under this Act;

(vii)

persons who make taxable supply of goods or services or both on behalf of other taxable persons whether as an agent or otherwise;

(viii)

Input Service Distributor, whether or not separately registered under this Act;

(ix)

persons who supply goods or services or both, other than supplies specified under sub-section (5) of section 9, through such electronic commerce operator who is required to collect tax at source under section 52;

(x)

every electronic commerce operator [who is required to collect tax at source under section 52;]

(xi)

every person supplying online information and database access or retrieval services from a place outside India to a person in India, other than a registered person; [* * * *]

[(xia)

every person supplying online money gaming from a place outside India to a person in India; and]

(xii)

such other person or class of persons as may be notified by the Government on the recommendations of the Council.

As per the above provisions of Registration under the GST Act, a person is liable to be registered in the State or Union Territory from where he/she is making the taxable supply. As discussed in the foregoing paras, we observe that all transactions of the Appellant are made from their Head Office located in Maharashtra. No separate transactions are made from the Appellant Odisha. All invoices are issued from their HO of the Appellant. The services provided by the Appellant Company to the Customers of Odisha are made through their FSEs placed in Odisha. In view of above, we observe that the Appellant does not require any separate registration in Odisha under the provisions of Section 22 or 24 of CGST/OGST Act, 2017.

5.6 Given the observations stated above, the following issue wise rulings are passed:

RULING

6. Based on the above discussions and findings, the following ruling is passed by the AAAR Odisha State as per the questions raised by M/thermos Fisher Scientific India Private Limited :-

Q.1. Whether the repair and maintenance services provided by the Head Office of the Appellant which is in Maharashtra through Field Service Engineers under Annual Maintenance Contract or Comprehensive Maintenance Contracts with the Customers in Odisha constitute a ‘Place of Business’ in Odisha under Section 2(85) of the CGST Act;

Ans: No, answer is in the Negative.

(ii) Whether temporary storage of spare parts and tool kit at the Appellant’s location in Odisha constitute a ‘Place of Business’ under Section 2(85) or a ‘Fixed Establishment’ under Section 2(50) of the CGST Act;

Ans: No, answer is in the Negative

(iii) Whether the Appellant is required to obtain separate GST registration in Odisha solely on account of the activities performed by them Odisha.

Ans: No, answer is in the Negative.