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 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