Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST Update No 241 on pre-packaged and labelled goods

GST Update No 241 on pre-packaged and labelled goods
The applicability of different tax rates on branded and non-branded food items or the grant of exemptions on the condition that the goods are not sold under brand name has its roots from erstwhile GST regime. In the 47th GST Council Meeting, it was recommended to revise the scope of exemption and exempt only those items which are not “pre-packaged and labelled” in accordance with Legal Metrology Act vide Notification No. 06/2022-Central Tax Rate dated 13.07.2022. Further, the Tax Research Unit has also issued FAQs on 17.07.2022 on the subject matter under consideration to address the difficulties and issues faced by the trade and industry. The notification and FAQs released in this respect are subject matter of our present update. The present notification has widened the scope wherein concept of branded and unbranded food items has been completely replaced by concept of “Pre-packaged and labelled” goods. It is further clarified vide the said notification that the term “pre-packaged commodity” is defined in Section 2(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (LMR) as the package in which the commodity is pre-packed or a label is securely affixed thereto to bear the declarations under the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the rules made thereunder. It is pertinent to mention that the LMR defines the pre-packaged commodity as “a commodity which without the purchaser being present is placed in a package of whatever nature, whether sealed or not, so that the product contained therein has a pre-determined quantity.” Therefore, the supply would be covered under the ambit of GST provided it is pre-packaged product and kept ready for sale whether it is sealed or otherwise and it requires declaration in accordance with provisions of LMR Act. Aligning with the above, it can be concluded that both the retail trade and wholesale trade stands taxable. This is analysed after having a detailed discussion on provisions related toTrade wherein it is prescribed that provisions of the LMR shall not apply in following cases: 1. Single Packages of commodities containing quantity of more than 25kgs or 25 Ltrs. 2. Cement, fertilizer and agricultural farm produce sold in bags above 50 kgs 3. Packaged commodities meant for industrial consumers or institutional consumers Consequently, notified products stated above will be eligible for exemption and therefore, shall not be taxable. Accordingly, GST would be attracted on supply of such goods provided the pre-packaged commodity is supplied in packages containing quantities less than or equal to 25kgs. Various issues on this were raised before Government seeking clarification as regards to applicability of GST in case several packages are sold out to customer. To illustrate, what will happen if 10 packages of 10kgs each are sold in a larger pack? The Government communicated via FAQ that in such a scenario, since these individual packages are meant for eventual sale to customer, GST would be levied. Question were also raised as regards to the fact that whether the retailer is liable to collect GST even if loose quantities from the package is supplied. In this respect, it was clarified that supply by retailer is not a supply of packaged commodity and therefore, no GST shall be attracted in the said transaction. However, a package of rice of 50 kgs will not attract GST even if LMR Act makes it mandatory to provide certain declaration in this respect. On the other hand, in case of rice millers for example, selling packages of 20 Kgs rice and would be required to make declaration being covered under pre-packaged and labelled commodity for GST purposes and thereby, GST shall be attracted on same. As far as wholesale trade is concerned, the scope of LMR is as follows: 1. 10 or more retail packages sold as one pack to an end consumer will also get covered under ‘wholesale package’ 2. Any number of retail packages sold as one package to intermediary and not to a single consumer From the above it is crystal clear that the GST would be attracted on entire supply chain i.e. from wholesaler to retailer to end consumer. The intention behind incorporating this is to keep entire supply chain within the ambit of tax and support the view of seamless flow of input tax credit.Clarification was also sought regarding taxability if pre-packaged commodity is supplied for consumption to industrial consumers or institutions. The question is answered by stating that the said supply is excluded from the purview of the LMR Act, and therefore, no GST shall be attracted on the same. The government has complicated the exemption by introducing the concept of “pre-packaged and labelled goods”, which also makes reference to the provisions contained in the Legal Metrology Act. The taxpayers would now have to be vigilant as regards the applicability of the provisions of Legal Metrology Act on the “pre-packaged and labelled goods” supplied by them as it is possible that no GST is applicable if their product does not require declaration to be made under the Legal Metrology Act.
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com