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 on Why Paratha is not a Roti - AAR Karnataka 69/2020-21

GST Update on Why Paratha is not a Roti - AAR Karnataka 69/2020-21
A recent GST advance ruling pronounced by the Karnataka Authority for Advance Rulings holding that parotas would be subject to a higher GST rate of 18 per cent as compared to roti being taxed at 5% has ignited a new spark of debate as regards classification of parotas .
Bengaluru-based food products company M/s ID Fresh Food (India) Pvt. Ltd.involved in preparation and supply of ready-to-cook items had approached the AAR to comment on the issue whether preparation of whole wheat parotta and Malabar parotta may be categorised as identical to khakhara, plain chapati or roti, which attract GST rate of 5%?
The products khakhra, plain chapatti and roti are completely cooked preparations, do not require any processing for human consumption and hence are ready to eat food preparations.The impugned product (whole wheat Parottas and Malabar Parottas) are different from the said khakhras, plain chapatti or roti as they require heat process before consumption but comprise of ingredients similar to roti in common parlance.
According to the authority, khakhra, plain chapatti or roti are ready or completely-cooked merchandise, so that they fall within the class of ready-to-use meals merchandise beneath the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. But parathas must be heated before consumption and can’t be positioned in the identical class. Karnataka bench was of the view that unlike roti, plain chapati, khakhra etc which are wholly cooked,parota is half baked and needs further cooking to be ready to eat. Consequently, it held that the parotas are classifiable under chapter 2106 but are not eligible for GST rate of 5% applicable to rotis/chapattis.
After studying the above decision, it is surprising that the parathas are not considered as akin to roti so as to apply GST rate of 5%. We reiterate that the classifications disputes stem from multiplicity of tax rates. In past also we have seen the classification dispute in case of M/s Nestle India Ltd. over the issue of the correct rate of excise duty applicable to the famous KitKat chocolate vis-à-vis a wafer. The rate of excise duty applicable to chocolates was 20% and the excise duty for wafers/biscuit was 10%. Nestle claimed that KitKat was a wafer with a chocolate coating and the Excise Department claimed that KitKat as a chocolate.
In the present case, the Karnataka AAR interpreted the product category 1905 “Khakhara, plain chapati or roti” as one that covered ready-to-eat food items while the ID Fresh Food parottas required heating before eating and hence were determined as falling in a different category. The AAR has determined that the packaged Parotas will come under heading 2106, and accordingly it will be taxed at 18%. The order makes it clear that it is applicable to the parotas made in the factories of the food processing company, which are kept frozen, and they need further processing by consumers before consuming them. This also makes it clear that the order is not applicable to parotas served at food stalls and restaurants, which are completely cooked products and consumers can consume them directly without requiring any further processing. Accordingly, we may presume that the GST rate of 18% is applicable only for frozen parathas and not to parathas served at restaurants.
In our opinion, frozen parota is preserved, sealed, packed, branded and is usually sold at higher prices adding that it is not a staple item and is consumed by the class which can afford to pay taxes. Many food items that fall in 0% category are generally items of essential category. Products such as milk is tax-free, but milk in tetrapack is taxed at 5% whereas condensed milk is taxed at 12%.The FMCG companies comprise the organised segment of the processed food industry and make significant profits on sale of packaged food items by selling them at higher rates, and that’s why they are taxed at higher rates.This is the reason why Karnataka bench has put frozen parota in 18% GST slab rate.
 
This is solely for educational purpose.
You can reach us at www.capradeepjain.com, at our facebook page on https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/as well as follow us on twitter at https://www.twitter.com/@capradeepjain21.
 
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