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

PJ/Case Laws/2011-12/1150

Classification of Jaljira - Whether an appetizer or masala

Case:  Commercial Taxes Officer v/s Jalani Enterprises
 
Citation: 2011(266) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.)
 
Issue:- Whether Jaljira is only an appetizer or is a masala?

Brief Facts:- The respondent firm is a manufacturer and seller of Jaljira. The respondent deposited sales tax at the rate of 10% assuming that Jaljira is not a Masala and hence taxable at the general rate of 10% as residuary entry 199, which reads as under: "199. General rate, that is all goods that are not covered by S. No. 1 - 198. 10%" The assessing officer passed order against the respondent.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the assessing officer, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Commercial Taxes, challenging the order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Special Circle-II, Jodhpur. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) by his order held that Jaljira is not a Masala and therefore tax levied at general rate of 10% was justified and he set aside the demand raised by the Assessing Authority.

Appellant filed two appeals before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer challenging the aforesaid order of Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Ajmer. The Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer by its common order set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and restored the orders passed by the Assessing Authority.

Being aggrieved by the said order the respondent herein filed a Revision Petition before the Rajasthan High Court which came to be allowed by the High Court under the impugned judgment and order.

Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed the appeals before Supreme Court. 

Appellant’s Contention:- The appellant submitted that the respondent is liable to pay sales tax at the rate of 16% on the product manufactured by it and the assessing officer was justified in treating the respondent liable to pay sales tax at the rate of 16% as per the Notification was issued by the state Government on 26.03.1999, which was to the mentioned that All kinds of eatables & non alcoholic potable 12% liquids. Subsequent thereto also a notification was issued by the appellant herein on 22.03.2002 making the same effective from the date of its issuance, wherein Entry 80 includes the following: Sr. No. Detail of Goods Tax Rate 80 Dry Fruits, Supari, Kirana items, Masala 4% ([when sold in unmixed form, whether lose or in polyethylene packs]) like Mirchi, Dhaniya, sonf, methi, ajwain, suwa, haldi, kathodi, amchoor and asalia, jeera (cumin seed).

Whereas Entry 186 includes the following: Sr. No. Detail of Goods Tax Rate 186 All kinds of eatables & non-alcoholic potable 16% liquids such as fruit syrups, distilled juices, jams [chatni, murabbas], fruit juices, drink concentrates of all types and forms, essences, concentrates, corn flaks and wheat flakes, custard powder, baking powder, ice-cream powder and [multi-ingredient packed masala].

The appellant also submitted that a letter dated 12.11.2001 was issued by the Deputy Secretary, Finance Department, Tax Division, Government of Rajasthan to the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Deptt, Rajasthan, Jaipur, which reads as follows:

"........I am to state that "Packed Masala" used in entry number 184 means, a Masala where two or more ingredients are mixed and sold in packed conditions. Spices sold singly will continue to be taxed as per entry number 82......"

The appellant further submitted that respondent has itself shown the product manufactured by it Jaljira as Packed Masala and therefore the assessing officer was justified in treating the respondent liable to pay sales tax at the rate of 16%.

Respondent’s Contention:- The respondent submitted that the assessment year in question, the said notification dated 22.03.2002 being not applicable and the earlier notification being applicable, rate of sales tax at the rate of 10% for the same is only payable.

Reasoning of Judgment:- The Supreme Court perused the order of the High Court and observed that the High Court in is judgment held that Jaljira cannot be termed as a Masala in itself, but it is a mixture of masalas and other materials, which can be used for digestion. The High Court therefore held that Jaljira is nothing but edible preparation ready for use either directly or after dissolving in water for human consumption and as it is not used as additional constituent in any food substance, therefore, it cannot be termed as packed masala. The aforesaid findings were arrived at by the High Court after referring to the contents of Jaljira shown to be as follows: Sr. No. Name of Item Percentage 1. Salt 40%,2. Kala Namak 1%,3. Nimbu Ka Sat (Citric Acid) 8%,4. Sonth 10%,5. Kalimirch 10%,6. Pudina 10%,7. Hing 1% ,8. Jira 18%, and 9. Lalmirch 2% According to the High Court Jaljira would therefore fall in the residuary clause and therefore tax should be levied at the rate of 10% and not 16%.

The Court observed that each one of the contents of the product referred to above and relied upon by the High Court would indicate that most of the items used in the manufacture of Jaljira are nothing else but spices. They are grinded and mixed. When spices are grinded and mixed, it gives rise to a new product, which is a mixed masala. Different ingredients are used in preparation of Masala after grinding and mixing several ingredients and when they are so grinded they lose their own identity and character and a new product separately known to the commercial world comes into existence. Sales tax is levied on sale of commercial commodities; therefore, individual spices could be termed as different commercial commodities. When they are grinded and mixed they give rise to a separate commercial commodity altogether which could be taxed separately. It is settled law that when one particular item is covered by one specified entry, then the Revenue is not permitted to travel to the residuary entry. If from the records it is established that the product in question could be brought under a specific entry then there is no reason to take resort to the residuary entry. There is no doubt that Jaljira is a drink. The contents of Jaljira is put into water and taken as digestive drink but when we look into the manner and method of preparation of the product Jaljira, we find that it is a mixture of different spices after grinding and mixing. Therefore, it is nothing but a Masala packed into packets of different nature/quantity and sold to the consumers. It would, therefore, for all practical purposes would come within the Entry No. 184 and it cannot be said that it would come under the residuary entry as held by the High Court.

The Supreme Court considered that the clarificatory letter dated 12.11.2001 which was issued by the Deputy Secretary, Finance Department, Tax Division, Government of Rajasthan is also placed on record which specifically states that "Packed Masala" used in entry number 184 means, a Masala where two or more ingredients are mixed and sold in packed conditions. The said letter is in the nature of clarification of entry number 184 with which we are concerned. Although the said letter is an inter-departmental communication,but it cannot be said that clarification given by the Department cannot be made use of for interpreting the entry in the notification.
 
The Supreme Court was of the opinion that the entries in the notification by Department are quite clear to include the product in question within the ambit and parameters of the expression packed masala and therefore the assessing officer was justified in demanding sales tax from the respondent at the rate of 16% holding that the product manufactured by the respondent falls within the category of items included in Entry No. 184.
 
The Supreme Court further considered that Other products of the assessee such as Aachar Masala, Jaljeera powder, Anar Masala, Methi Chatani, Pudina, Lehsoon Chatni, Chat Masala, Kitchen Masala, Mangodi Masala, Sambhar Masala, Dal Masala, Kasuri Methi, Heena Powder, Shikkai Powder, Lahsoon powder, must be held to be Masala packed falling under Entry No. 184 of the notification dated 29.03.2001.  So far as Masala and other products are concerned the same principle would apply but at the same time Idli Mix and Dosa Mix cannot be said to be Masala and therefore the same would be excluded from being assessed for the purpose of sales tax assessment as `masala'. Judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside. The order passed by the Tax Assessment Officer is restored
 
Decision:- Appeal allowed.
 
Comment:- This is very important decision. The CESTAT has decided the matter against the same party saying that “Jaljeera” is drink and not Masala. But the Apex Court has decided in this sales tax matter that it is Masala only. Thus, for Central excise matter, it is drink but for Sales tax matter, it will be termed as Masala. Now, there is exemption to Jaljeera from payment of Central Excise duty and hence there is no dispute but it may arise in future. 

**************

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