Company's Barter Claim Denied for GST on Milling Charges; Advance Ruling Application Rejected

The case involved a company supplying red gram dall to a State Government undertaking and receiving whole red gram in return. The company argued for the classification of the transaction as 'barter' to avoid GST on milling charges. The jurisdictional officer disagreed, stating the company engaged in taxable job work. The Authority for Advance Ruling rejected the company's plea for admission due to a pending issue with the proper officer. As a result, the application for advance ruling was not admitted, and the proceedings concluded without a ruling on the taxability of packing charges received.

---

---

Issues:
1. Classification of the transaction as 'barter'
2. Taxability of packing charges received

Classification of the transaction as 'barter':
The case involved an application filed under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act and AP Goods & Services Tax Act by a company engaged in the business of pulses and dalls. The applicant supplied red gram dall in advance to a State Government undertaking and received whole red gram at a later date. The applicant argued that the transaction should be classified as 'barter' as they did not perform job work or custom milling. They relied on a specific entry in a notification to support their claim that no GST should be payable on milling charges. The applicant also contended that transportation and packing charges were ancillary to the main supply and therefore exempt from tax. The jurisdictional officer, however, opined that the applicant had indeed engaged in job work by milling red gram for the State Government undertaking, making the supply taxable under the APGST Act. The officer highlighted discrepancies in the applicant's tax filings and initiated an investigation. The applicant sought an advance ruling on the matter.

Taxability of packing charges received:
During the virtual hearing, the applicant's representative reiterated their submissions. The Authority for Advance Ruling examined the issues raised and the remarks from the jurisdictional officer. It was noted that the applicant had approached the Authority on an issue already pending with the proper officer, which was deemed inadmissible under the relevant provisions. Citing the proviso to section 98(2) of the CGST Act, the Authority rejected the applicant's plea for admission of the application for advance ruling. Consequently, the application was not admitted, and the proceedings were concluded accordingly.

---