If regd to do so,unless it valuable from Maharashtra boarder point.

In term of Section 10(1)(a) , movement can be either caused by supplier or the Recipient or by any other person & the POS will be where movement terminates for the delivery should be considered.

Now if read the provision of Rule 46(e) , Tax Invoice issued by registered person is required to mention the Address with State & state code on the same.
So if the state code mentioned in Tax Invoice in Maharashtra , & the movement of goods (Painting) done by Recepient (Customer) , the delivery is terminated in Maharashtra.
Hence IGST is Applicable.

My reply is also satisfy If suppose the consignment value is more then 50k , the Eway in term rule 138 need to be generated & as soon as under the state Maharashtra is selected, it automatically pick the IGST Tax thereon.

The law is very clear
the pos will be mumbai
since the buyer is from mumbai and taking the goods by himself to mumbai. the delhi govt cant take sgst on goods taken to mumbai. igst has to be charged on this supply.
pos cannot be delhi in this case. there is no need to be confused.

pankaj has very rightly explained with the relevant provision of igst act.

Thanks a lot.. I am also of same view..

Delivery in law not to be interpreted as a common language. Delivery is defined in sale of goods act. POS will remain Delhi as per my view

Pos has to be mumbai as the goods were moved by the customer by himself to his place of business.

this is a general rule that everytime where there is a movement of goods involved due to supply of such goods, the pos is the place where such goods are moved.

section 10 is vry clear on this. i cant conceive why people are getting confused.

As per section 10 POS will be location of goods at the time at which movement of goods terminates for DELIVERY to the recipient. It is not just movement of goods to the address of recipient or location of recipient it is the movement of goods terminating for delivery. You need to see when delivery is taking place.

Veerendar, I believe you are a CA student. You must have studied Sales of Goods Act in your foundation. Check the definition of delivery there.

You all must understand that GST is only a taxation law. It taxes transactions happening in business. There are many laws which are business laws which determines how business are to be conducted legally. Only when you understand these laws you will be able apply GST correctly since GST depends on the transactions but nature of such transactions depends on these business laws.

Merely reading GST is not enough if you want to expertise in it. Without reading other laws and using interpretation principles one's knowledge of GST will remain sub-standard.

But you are repeatedly failing to pay due heed to the words 'by the recipient'. goods may be sold on ex factory basis amd thereafter the recipient would transport the goods.
as per your reading of sale of goods act you might say that the pos is the location of supplier.
but on a careful examination of section 10 it is understood that for the purpose of levying gst pos would be the place of recipient even in case of ex-factory sale.

sale of goods act is for determining the rights and title of the parties involved and the time of transfer of title in goods. but taxation law constructs jurisdiction independently and many times overpassing other common law.

one must appreciate the purpose and preamble of statutes for comprehending the legal position contained therein. we may be doomed if we read singled-out parts of statutes from here and there.

proficiency in the art of reading law comes by practice. i hope you will get there someday

No taxation laws does not determine the ways of business.

Delivery will always be to the recipient but delivery terminates when possession transferred.

Transportation upto the place of recipient is no where required. its always transportation till delivery terminates..

Where does delivery terminates. In our case Delhi. Thereafter it is in the possession of the recipient. He can take it anywhere from there.

And yet I know you have still not read the definition of Delivery.

And I believe you are singling out the statutes. I read both the business laws and taxation laws together.

If you are reading for sale of goods you will read contract act, sales of goods act and GST law.

If you are reading for sale of flats (immovable property) you will read transfer of property act, RERA, contract act and GST.

So you need to identify which laws you need to study to determine the correct tax position.

If we follow your opinion for reading statutes you will obviously throw the judgement of Mohit Minerals in the trash can since according to you taxation law constructs jurisdiction independently and many times overpassing other common law.
 

First read the laws, understand the legal structure and then opine on it. 

Actually I don't know where this is going to end. But before that let me express my view.

All these years, I have been thinking that POS in case of ex-factory sale is the place of the factory of the supplier. But after going thru the above discussions, I thought of delving deep into the provisions of the statute once again and here is what I have got to express:

The excerpt from section 10(1) of IGST Act:

(1) The place of supply of goods, other than supply of goods imported into, or exported from India, shall be as under,––

(a) where the supply involves movement of goods, whether by the supplier or the recipient or by any other person, the place of supply of such goods shall be the location of the goods at the time at which the movement of goods terminates for delivery to the recipient;

On school of thought agrees on location of factory being the POS and other school of thought advocates location of the recipient where the goods finally reach.

Advance ruling of M/s Penna Cement Industries Limited:

In respect of ex- factory sale, though for them supply terminates at factory gate, yet further movement is carried by the recipient or transporter (other person) of goods up to the billing address state. Thus, the delivery in such cases terminates in another State and therefore they should charge IGST in respect of such supplies.”

For more, read: https://bit.ly/3jjSKza

I don't want to comment on who is right or wrong. But I found the following thoughts logical:

Since the movement actually terminates at the location of the recipient where the goods are destined to, the place of supply should be the state where the goods are taken up by the recipient for consumption.

Also, I had to go thru the illustration in FAQ dated 15/12/2018 from CBIC to understand better (but this is about a registered buyer)

Q 6. What would be the place of supply wherein the supplier hands over the goods to recipient in his state and further movement is caused by the recipient?
Ans. The movement can be caused by supplier, recipient or any other person. Where the supply involves movement of goods, the place of supply shall be the location where the movement of goods terminates for delivery to the recipient.
Illustration: A person from Gujarat comes to Mumbai and purchases goods. He declared his Gujarat GSTIN, arranges transport himself and takes goods to Gujarat. The place of supply would be Gujarat in this case.

https://www.cbic.gov.in/htdocs-cbec/gst/Final-GST-FAQ-31218.pdf

Please share your views.

First things first. Judgements by AAR are not binding and the current track record of AAR is also not good.
FAQs also end with the disclaimer that these are not legal position.
And to end this it's very simple. If the recipient takes delivery ex-factory and transports it outside India. Will POS for the original seller become outside India? Answer this to yourself and everything will be clear.

Section 10(1) is not about POS in case of imports/exports. So your question is not related I think.

Well! I'm aware about applicability of rulings from AAR and also about FAQ. Thanks for reminding me.

How about this judicial ruling: Lalitha Muraleedharan Vs. Range Forest Officer?

Export will be for the recipient taking it outside India
But by your logic POS will become outside India for thr original supplier which is absurd. Hence my point.

It is weird to assume POS to be outside India!!! Because section 10(1) is not at all about export. Also, in the query, the location of the recipient is clearly known as Maharashtra (not somewhere outside India).

Also, I'm curious to know how someone would interpret the above judicial ruling from Kerala High Court in this regard (I know it applies only to Kerala, anything else?)

The AAR has given very logical opinion. further the cbic clarifications are also in consonance with my view.

i must say that to understand this we must firstly separate the concept of time of transfer of title in goods; the point of taxation and the place of transfer of title.

as per the gst acts, the law of contracts and the sale of goods act the title is devolved upon the buyer at the time when goods are allowed to be taken by the seller in case of ex-factory sale.

but the place of supply is a different concept and the tax laws actively creates a legal fiction on this matter. this aspect is very crucial as this determines the jurisdiction of states to levy tax. separating time of transfer of title in goods and the place of supply requires us to not think about the time of transfer while reading s. 10 of igst act.
we know that gst is a destination based tax and the right to collect tax lies with the state where it is ultimately consumed. simply because the buyer came all the way from mumbai to delhi for purchasing an article does not give the UT of Delhi the right to tax the transaction. the AAR has given importance to this principle for arriving at their conclusion. i cant over emphasize the need to pay allegiance to the preamble of statutes.

it is antithetical to say that as per this logic if he takes the goods out of india will lead to treat it as export. s. 10 would not apply to export

as per your logic if some NR person comes to india to purchase a machine from delhi for exporting it to his home country would mean that the sale of machine was an intrastate sale.
whereas if he ordered the delhi supplier without visiting india to deliver the machine to his country would be an export sale.
i cant see any logic in such interpretation