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 Law/2019-2020/3589

Whether imported raw whole yellow peas are agricultural produce? If answer is yes than services by way of handling the imported raw whole yellow peas are eligible for exemption?
T. P. ROY CHOWDHURY & COMPANY PVT. LTD 2020 (32) G.S.T.L. 661 (App. A.A.R. - GST - W.B.)
Brief Facts:-The Applicant is stated to be acting as a stevedore and handles imported raw whole yellow peas. Being a stevedore, the Applicant supplies the service of loading and unloading of cargo in seagoing vessels.
AAR in this case ruled that the Applicant supplies the service of loading, unloading etc. after the cargo of yellow peas, imported from a foreign land, reaches the port of entry. Exemption under SI No. 54(e) of Notification No. 12/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated 28/06/2017 (corresponding State Notification No. 1136 – FT dated 28/06/2017) is not applicable to the Applicant’s service. Aggrieved by their order, they appealed in AAAR.
 
Issue:-Whether imported raw whole yellow peas are agricultural produce? If answer is yes than services by way of handling the imported raw whole yellow peas are eligible for exemption?
 
Appellant’s Contention:-
  • The Appellant emphasized that its product is an agricultural produce and is exempted from taxation under the GST Act. Thus services associated in marketing such exempted product are also exempted under SI. No. 54(e) of the Exemption Notification.
  • The percentage of broken grain or split kernel compared to the consignment volume is minor and insignificant and is a result of natural handling of the consignment. The imported raw whole yellow peas were not subjected to any process by any machinery or mill and so the Exemption Notification will apply in case of Appellant’s service.
  • The WBAAR erred in interpreting the primary market as nowhere it is mentioned that the services covered under Si. No. 54(e) of the Exemption Notification is restricted to the primary market or the farm level.
  • The WBAAR erred in interpreting the meaning of “agricultural produce”. The conditions of being agricultural produce as defined under 2(d) of Notes to the Exemption Notification are mutually exclusive.
  • The AAR, Andhra Pradesh in the matter of M/s SSSVK Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. in order no. AAR/AP/02(GST)/2018 dated 28.03.2018 observed that the benefits of exemption under the Exemption Notification is not person specific. It is equally applicable for agricultural produce in case of farmers as well as traders. Raw whole yellow peas fall under serial no. 45 of Notification No. 2/2017 — Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (corresponding State Notification No. 1126 FT dated 28.06.2017), as “dried leguminous vegetables, shelled, whether or not skinned or split” in the exempted category. So services related to exempted goods are also eligible for exemption.
  • No IGST is charged on the consignment as evident from the bill of entry justifying the imported goods to be agricultural produce and thus exempted from taxation.
 
Respondent’s Contention:-The Department officer argued that process done by assesses so that the essential characteristics of agricultural produce have been altered. Department has also refer the ruling in case of M/s. SSVK Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.and said that the above ruling is not applicable in this case because traders were those purchased directly from the farmers. In the instant case the basic conditions of being “agricultural produce” and “primary market” were not adhered to.
The moot question is that whether the Appellant’s service is eligible for exemption under SI. No. 54(e) of the Exemption Notification.
There is no dispute that raw whole yellow peas are agricultural produce covered under serial no. 45 of the Rate Notification and are exempted goods. However, this particular consignment of raw whole yellow peas was harvested in foreign land and the concerned primary market or the farmers’ market is located in that foreign land. We observe from a combined reading of entry number 54 of the Exemption Notification and definition 2(d) of the Exemption Notification that all services and processes are excluded beyond the primary market. For the sake of clarity definition under 2(d) the Exemption Notification is reproduced here as following:
“agricultural produce” means any produce out of cultivation of plants and rearing of all life firms of animals, except the rearing of horses, .for .food, fibre, fuel, raw material or other similar products. on which either no further processing is done or such processing, is clone as is usually done by a cultivator or producer which does not alter its essential characteristics hut makes it marketable for primary market”.
The term primary market in common parlance refers to farmers’ market like “mandi” or “arhat” being a place where the farmers directly sell their product to the buyers like wholesalers, millers, food processing units etc. The spirit of the legislature was intended to boost the agricultural sector of the home country and not that of a foreign land. The primary market in the instant case being located in foreign shores does not conform to the definition as stated above. Further there is no evidence that the grains have not undergone any type of treatment before leaving the foreign country from where they have been imported into India.
In view of above discussion we find no infirmity in the ruling pronounced by the WBAAR. The appeal thus fails and stands disposed accordingly.
Ruling:- Disposed off
 Prepared By- CA Mahesh Parmar
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