<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14px">Rathi Limited of Rajasthan gets an order of 100 cell phones from Patil Electronics in Maharashtra. Patil Electronics informs Rathi Limited that they will take the delivery of the cell phones from the factory of Rathi Limited at Jaipur.</span></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14px">Over here the location of the supplier is Rajasthan and location of the receiver are Maharashtra. However, Patil Electronics has agreed to take the delivery from Rathi Limited&#39;s Jaipur factory. This implies that the termination of the movement of the cell phones to Patil Electronics takes place at the factory of Rathi Limited, i.e., in Jaipur. Hence, the place of supply is Jaipur in Rajasthan.</span></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14px">This is an intra-state transaction and CGST, and SGST will be levied by Rathi Limited. It should be noted that Rathi Limited will be charging SGST and CGST in Rajasthan, the credit of which will not be available to Patil Electronics in Maharashtra. Hence, there will be a loss of credit.</span></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14px">Alternatively, if Patil Electronics would have asked Rathi Limited to deliver goods at its factory in Maharashtra it would have become an inter-state transaction and IGST would have been levied. The credit of IGST would have been available to Patil Electronics.</span></p>

<p style="text-align:justify">&nbsp;</p>

<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14px">Many experts have an alternate view on this topic it says as the transaction involves the movement of goods by the buyer it should be covered under Section 10(1)(a) and not 10(1)(c). Which implies that place of supply should be Maharashtra and IGST shall be levied on the transaction.</span></p>