Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post an Article
Post a New Article
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Co Author :

In case of Co-Author, You may provide Username as per TMI records

Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Articles

Back

All Articles

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
Sort By:
Relevance Date

No GST on extra packs of cigarettes supplied along with regular supply under single price

Bimal jain
GST Not Applicable on Extra Packs in 'Buy One, Get One Free' Cigarette Promotions, Confirms AAAR Decision The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR) in Uttar Pradesh upheld a prior decision stating that Goods and Services Tax (GST) is not applicable on extra packs of cigarettes supplied alongside regular packs under a single price by a company engaged in cigarette manufacturing. The decision confirmed that the 'Buy One, Get One Free' promotional scheme applies to these goods, interpreting it as a single price for multiple items rather than free goods. The appeal by the Deputy Commissioner challenging this interpretation was dismissed, as the issue was not previously pending in any other proceedings. (AI Summary)

The AAAR, Uttar Pradesh in the matter of IN RE: M/S DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CGST & C. EX. DIVISION-II, AGRA COMMISSIONERATE AGAINST (M/S GOLDEN TOBIE PRIVATE LIMITED) [2022 (7) TMI 699 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, UTTAR PRADESH]upheld the AAR order and stated that Goods and Services Tax (“GST”) shall not levied on extra packs of cigarette supplied along with regular supply.

Facts:

M/s Golden Tobie Private Limited (“the Respondent”) has engaged in the business of manufacturing cigarettes (“the Goods”). In order to grow the business, the Respondent had launched a new sale scheme wherein additional 30 packs of cigarettes will be supplied on buying 100 packs without receiving any extra consideration and filed an advance ruling, before the AAR, Uttar Pradesh to ascertain the tax liability on the extra packs of goods where it was held that the no GST would be levied on extra packs. Aggrieved by the ruling, the Deputy Commissioner, CGST, and Central Excise (“the Appellant”) filed an appeal before the AAAR on the following grounds:

  • The Respondent did not inform the Appellant that several alerts were issued against their firm by the department and that they are indulgedin claiming refund of accumulated ITC obtained through fraudulent means.

Issues:

  • Whether GST would be applicable on additional packs of cigarettes supplied by the Respondent in accordance with their sale scheme?
  • Whether buy one get one free clause is applicable on the goods manufactured by the Respondent?

Held:

The AAAR, Uttar Pradesh inIN RE: M/S DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CGST & C. EX. DIVISION-II, AGRA COMMISSIONERATE AGAINST (M/S GOLDEN TOBIE PRIVATE LIMITED) [2022 (7) TMI 699 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, UTTAR PRADESH]has held as under:

  • The “Buy One, Get One Free’’ clause in the circular regarding Promotional Scheme does not talk or bar any particular commodity, rather it elaborates the scheme of “buy one get one offer”.
  • Further noted that, “buy one, get one free” is not an individual supply of free goods but a case of two or more individual supplies where a single price is being charged for the entire supply. It can best be treated as supplying two goods under the price of one.
  • Opined that, the authority for advanced ruling can only be rejected if the issue raised in the application has already been pending or decided in any proceedings.
  • Observed that, the Respondent had informed about the alerts issued against their firm by the department and that they are indulgedin claiming refund of accumulated ITC obtained through fraudulent means, but it was nowhere objected by the Appellant that the question raised in advance ruling application is already pending in any proceedings.
  • Held that, the AAR, Uttar Pradesh order is proper and needs no interference.

(Author can be reached at [email protected])

answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Articles