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

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