Introduction
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (‘CBIC’) has issued a new circular[i] to clarify the provisions of clause (ca) of s. 10(1) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘IGST Act’). The circular clarifies the determination of the place of supply of goods to unregistered persons, especially in scenarios where the billing and delivery addresses differ. The clarification follows the amendment brought by notification[ii], due to which the IGST (Amendment) Act, 2023 (31 of 2023) came into force from 01.10.2023.
Key Highlights
1. Clause (ca):
Clause (ca) was added to s. 10(1) of the IGST Act specifies that for supplies made to unregistered persons, the place of supply shall be the location as per the address recorded in the invoice. If the address is not recorded, the location of the supplier will be considered. An explanation clarifies that recording the name of the state on the invoice is deemed to be recording the address.
2. Clarification on Billing and Delivery Addresses:
The CBIC received queries about scenarios where the billing address differs from the delivery address, especially for e-commerce transactions.
For instance, if Mr. A from State X orders a mobile phone to be delivered to State Y and provides State X as the billing address, the place of supply will be the delivery address, i.e., State Y.
Suppliers can record the delivery address as the recipient’s address on the invoice to determine the place of supply.
Illustration
Conclusion
The circular provides a definitive framework for determining the place of supply for goods to unregistered persons, especially in e-commerce transactions. By establishing that the delivery address is the decisive location for supply, businesses can more accurately manage tax liabilities and reduce confusion in dealings with unregistered buyers. This clarity not only ensures compliance but also carries substantial economic advantages. For example, allocating tax revenues to the state where goods are delivered enhances local infrastructure and public services, ensuring that taxes contribute to regions where consumption actually occurs. Furthermore, this clarification simplifies tax calculations for businesses, significantly reducing administrative burdens and diminishing the risk of disputes over tax jurisdictions.
End Notes
[i] Circular No.209/3/2024-GST, Dated: 26.06.2024.
[ii] Notification 02/2023-Integrated Tax, Dated 29.09.2023.
Authored by Priyavansh Kaushik, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinion.
AUTHORED BY
More Insights
24-07-2026
10
min read
‘Shylockian’ Lending is ‘Squeezing of Blood’: NCLT Moves Beyond Debt & Default to Reject a Section 7 Application
In a rare departure from the conventional debt-and-default enquiry under section 7 of the IBC, the NCLT, Kochi Bench rejected the financial creditors' petition after characterizing the underlying arrangement as a ‘Shylockian system’ of lending. This court ruling discusses Shylockian lending and examines the strength of the Tribunal's focus on the economic substance of the transaction against established legal principles governing admission under section 7 of the IBC.
10-07-2026
7
min read
Faceless Reassessment after S. 147A: What the Supreme Court Did – and Did Not – Decide
The Supreme Court's decision in Tej Pratap Singh does not settle the JAO–FAO controversy. Following Parliament's retrospective insertion of s. 147A, it remands the issue to the High Courts for fresh consideration. Faceless reassessment was never merely about moving tax files from paper to portal; it fundamentally changed the statutory authority responsible for communicating with the taxpayer, examining the record, drafting the order and completing the assessment. The real question now is how far a retrospective legislative clarification can go.
22-06-2026
8
min read
Claim Admission is not Debt Acknowledgement: Supreme Court on RP’s Role & Limitation under the IBC
Can admission of a claim by a Resolution Professional extend limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act? In Shankar Khandelwal v. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court answered this question in the negative, holding that claim admission during CIRP is merely a statutory claim-verification process and not an acknowledgement of debt. The ruling clarifies the RP’s non-adjudicatory role and reinforces important principles governing limitation under the IBC.