Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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