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 Study/2020-21/154
16 May 2020

Does Mehandi/Henna powder fall under Chapter 33 or under chapter 14?
Case: M/s Sunil Kumar Gehlot (AAR No. RAJ/AAR/2020-21/01)
Introduction: M/s Sunil Kumar Gehlot is engaged in manufacture of hair dye powder and registered under GST.
 
Issue involved: Does Mehandi/Henna powder fall under Chapter 33 or under chapter 14?
Brief Facts: M/s Sunil Kumar Gehlot is engaged in manufacture of hair dye powder and registered under GST. The applicant intends to manufacture mehandi/henna powder in future and so clarification is required on classification and rate of the tax applicable.
 
Assessee’s Contention:
The assesse has contended in the following manner
  1. The present application for advance ruling has been filed to confirm the classification of henna powder and the rate of GST applicable thereon. In order to arrive at perfect conclusion, it is pertinent to make reference to various aspects that aid in the classification of their product henna powder under GST regime.
At the outset, it is worth noting that while filing application for registration under GST Laws, the list of goods mentions the Chapter 14 for henna powder. The HSN code no. 14041019 specifically mentions “Henna Powder” and so the applicant has mentioned the classification of their product henna powder under chapter 14 and accordingly, the rate of GST applicable is 5%. The applicant submits that when the GST portal itself specifies the HSN code for henna powder as 14041019, there is no doubt that the said product is covered under chapter 33. Therefore, the classification of the product mehandi/henna powder should be confirmed under HSN code 14041019.
In continuation to the above, reference may be made to amendment made vide insertion of serial no. 78A by Notification No. 06/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 25.01.2018 which amended the principal notification no. 01/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 which reads as follows:-
78A 1404 or 3305 Mehandi paste in cones
 
The applicant submits that after the above cited amendment, it is being interpreted that the above amendment is specific for Mehandi paste in cones and cannot be considered with reference to mehandi powder. In this regard, the applicant submits that the rate of GST applicable on henna powder was 5% since inception and this fact is confirmed by the Agenda Item No. 10 of the issues recommended by the Fitment Committee for the consideration of the GST Council. The extracts from the Agenda Item are produced for the sake of convenient reference as follows:-
 
S. No. Description HSN Present GST Rate Recommended GST rate Comments of the Fitment Committee
13. Mehandi paste in cones 3305/1404 18% 5%
  1. Henna powder falling under heading 1404 attracts 5% GST.
  2. Henna used as preparation for hair is classified under heading 3305 and attracts GST at the rate of 18%.
  3. To avoid disputes, fitment committee recommends 5% GST rate for mehandi paste in cones.
 
We submit that the above extracts clearly indicate that as far as product mehandi/henna powder is concerned, there is no doubt that the said product is classifiable under chapter 14 with applicable GST rate of 5%. Therefore, in light of the above cited extracts, which are relevant in the present case, the classification should be confirmed under HSN code 1404 with GST rate of 5%.
Decision:The tariff items 14041011 to 14041090 has already been omitted from the Custom Tariff Act, 1975 vide the finance act,2006( no.21 of 2006 ) dated 18.04.2006 and hence no such tariff item is available in Customs Tariff Act,1975.
We further observe that it is well known fact that Henna/Mehendi powder has a natural property of dye/tanning and is generally as hair dye. Therefore,we observe that the product is rightly classifiable under chapter heading 3305 as preparations for use on the hair and covered under amended Notification no. 41/2017-Central tax dated 14.11.2017 and attract 18% GST.
The Rajasthan AAR has ruled that Mehendi/Henna powder is covered under Chapter 33 and will attract GST @ 18%.
Conclusion: The classification dispute as regards mehandi/henna powder was prevalent since Central Excise Laws and the confusion still persists in GST regime. The amendments made in the notifications specifying rate of GST creates dispute as regards classification of henna powder in the GST regime.
 
 
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