TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>HDPE drum supplier denied concessional GST rate benefits under Notification 41/2017 for failing mandatory compliance requirements</h1> <h3>In Re: M/s. Time Technoplast Ltd.</h3> In Re: M/s. Time Technoplast Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Eligibility for 0.1% concessional rate of GST under Notification No 41/2017-IT (Rate).2. Interpretation of conditions under Notification No 41/2017-IT (Rate).3. Definition and role of a 'registered warehouse'.4. Compliance with procedural requirements for concessional tax benefits.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Eligibility for 0.1% Concessional Rate of GST:The appellant sought a ruling on whether they are eligible for the 0.1% concessional rate of tax on the supply of HDPE drums used for packing ethyl alcohol, which is then exported by a merchant exporter. The Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) held that the appellant is not entitled to the concessional rate under Notification No 41/2017-IT (Rate). The Appellate Authority upheld this ruling, stating that the appellant failed to fulfill the necessary conditions, particularly regarding the movement of goods directly from the supplier's premises to the port or a registered warehouse.2. Interpretation of Conditions under Notification No 41/2017-IT (Rate):The appellant argued that the AAR adopted a narrow interpretation of the notification's conditions, particularly the requirement for goods to move 'directly' to the port or a registered warehouse. They contended that the term 'supply' under Section 7 of the CGST Act and Section 10 of the IGST Act includes various forms of supply, including movement to a third party on the recipient's directions. The appellant asserted that their practice of delivering drums to the chemical manufacturer's premises for packing ethyl alcohol, which is then exported, should qualify under the notification.3. Definition and Role of a 'Registered Warehouse':The appellant argued that the premises of the chemical manufacturer should be deemed a 'registered warehouse' for the purposes of the notification. However, the Appellate Authority disagreed, stating that a factory and a warehouse serve distinctly different purposes and cannot be merged. The authority emphasized that a warehouse is a place for storing goods, not for manufacturing or processing them, and thus the sugar factory cannot be considered a registered warehouse.4. Compliance with Procedural Requirements for Concessional Tax Benefits:The appellant emphasized that all substantial conditions of the notification were met, and any procedural lapses should not preclude them from receiving the concessional rate. They cited various Supreme Court decisions advocating for a liberal interpretation of beneficial notifications. However, the Appellate Authority maintained that the conditions of the notification must be strictly complied with to avail the benefits. The authority concluded that the appellant did not fulfill the condition requiring goods to move directly to the port or a registered warehouse, thus disqualifying them from the concessional rate.Conclusion:The Appellate Authority upheld the AAR's ruling that the appellant is not eligible for the 0.1% concessional rate of tax under Notification No 41/2017-IT (Rate) due to non-compliance with the conditions, particularly the direct movement of goods to the port or a registered warehouse. The appeal was dismissed on all accounts.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
