Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

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