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 321 on cotton seed is not an agriculture produce

GST update No 321 on cotton seed is not an agriculture produce
It is well known fact that agriculture sector is one of the most sensitive sectors wherein the levy of GST is exposed to litigations as the ultimate intention of Government is to grant exemption to this sector from levy of GST. However, the availment of exemption in case of agriculture produce is debatable due to the definition stated in GST Laws. Recently, one case was reported before Punjab AAR in the case of M/S KAKA RAM HARI CHAND. The decision imparted in this case is subject matter of discussion of our present update.
The applicant is engaged in business of cotton seeds “banaula” for which they avail the services of GTA wherein GST is payable by the recipient under reverse charge mechanism. The applicant raised a question as regards to applicability of exemption notification in the present case wherein tax on GTA is exempted in relation to “agriculture produce” vide Entry No.21. It was observed that the query of applicant as regards to availability of exemption notification is squarely covered within ambit of Section 97 of CGST Act, 2017 on which appropriate ruling can be offered by the AAR.The applicant submitted that they are engaged in trading of cotton seeds for which they avail services of GTA wherein the tax is payable under reverse charge mechanism. The service of GTA with respect to agriculture produce is exempt. Further, as per the exemption entry, Punjab Agriculture Produce Markets Act in its Schedule at S.No. 15 incorporates cotton seeds “banaula” as an agriculture produce. Reference was drawn to decision of Delhi CESTAT in the case of R.K. & Sons v/s CCE Rohtak wherein it was stated that “ginned cotton” is covered under “agriculture produce”. Further, as per the survey, other suppliers were also having same practice as regards to applicability of GST on the transportation of said commodity.The authority submitted that S. No. 21 of exemption notification provides exemption for transportation of agriculture produce by GTA. The traders are considering oil seeds as agriculture produce and fail to pay tax on freight amount under RCM. However, the department disagrees with the opinion of taxpayers and states that they are required to pay tax on freight on purchase of cotton seeds. Further, the definition of agriculture produce is very restrictive in nature. The exemption is provided only to those producers which are directly harvested from the farms on which no processing is done to make it marketable. In the present case, the cotton seeds are derived from the cotton plant which consists of lint and seed together known as “seed cotton”. The seed cotton is ginned for extraction of fiber and cotton seed from it. In the process of ginning, cotton is first dried to remove moisture and then cleaned to remove any foreign particles and processed further. Therefore, cotton seed is obtained from seed cotton by way of industrial processing called ginning and hence, it is not an agriculture produce.
There had been instances wherein different statues are interpreted in different manner and the interpretation depends on objectives of particular statue with which it is enacted. Therefore, if cotton seeds are interpreted as agriculture produce under any other Acts and not under GST Law, due to the fact that GST Law has specific definition of agricultural produce for granting exemption.The above decision is a setback for the trade and industry wherein the cotton seeds cannot be termed as agriculture produce. Although it is well established that advance rulings are applicable only on the applicant who sought it and not on any other applicant. However, it is also well known that the advance ruling delivered are generally pro-revenue. The dispute as regards whether a particular commodity is agricultural produce or not was prevalent in Service Tax Regime too. To illustrate- there was lot of dispute as to whether rice is agricultural produce or not as it required lot of processing before it could be marketable. The government had resolved the dispute by granting specific exemption to transportation and storage services of rice. However, the ripples of erstwhile litigation can be observed in GST era too.
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