AAR rejects rectification application for tapioca flour classification under Section 98(2) CGST/TNGST Acts 2017

The AAR Tamil Nadu rejected an application for rectification of advance ruling regarding classification of tapioca flour obtained from dried tapioca roots. The Authority upheld its original classification of the product under Chapter 23031000 as residues of starch manufacture, attracting 5% GST, rather than under tariff item 1106. The AAR found the product unfit for human consumption and suitable only for livestock feed, confirming it falls under residues and waste from food industries. The rectification application was rejected under Section 98(2) of CGST/TNGST Acts 2017, as no error or mistake was identified in the original ruling.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) in this matter were:

• Whether the product traded by the applicant, namely tapioca flour obtained by drying and crushing inferior tapioca roots or residues, is correctly classified under the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) code 2303.10 as 'Residues of starch manufacture and similar residues' attracting GST at 5%, or whether it should be classified under HSN 1106 as flour of roots or tubers, attracting NIL GST rate.
• Whether the product falls under the exemption notifications issued under the CGST Act, 2017, particularly Notification No. 02/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28-06-2017, which exempts flour of manioc or cassava (tapioca) under certain conditions.
• Whether the applicant's product is a residue/waste from starch manufacture or a primary product derived directly from tapioca roots.
• Whether the applicant, as a trader/dealer in the said product, is liable to be registered under GST.
• Whether the original Advance Ruling No. 25/AAR/2023 dated 20-06-2023 contains any apparent error on the face of the record warranting rectification under Section 102 of the CGST Act, 2017.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Classification of the Product - HSN 2303.10 vs. HSN 1106

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The classification of goods under GST follows the HSN codes. Chapter 11 (HSN 1106) covers "Flour, meal and powder of the dried leguminous vegetables, of sago or of roots or tubers of heading 0714," generally attracting NIL GST when not bearing a registered brand name and not put up in unit containers. Chapter 23 (HSN 2303.10) covers "Residues of starch manufacture and similar residues," which are taxable at 5% GST. Notifications under the CGST Act exempt certain goods under specified conditions.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AAR examined the manufacturing process of the product as described by the applicant and the normal industry process. The applicant's product is derived from drying and crushing inferior tapioca tubers or residues obtained after starch extraction. The process involves crushing tapioca roots to extract starch (wet tapioca starch), which is further processed for human consumption products like sago and starch. The by-product, wet residue from starch manufacture, is dried and crushed to produce tapioca flour, which is not fit for human consumption but used mainly as animal feed and for adhesive manufacturing.

Key Evidence and Findings: The applicant's own submissions acknowledged that the product is obtained from residues of starch manufacture (wet tapioca waste), dried and crushed into flour, and used for animal feed. The product is supplied in bulk gunny bags without any registered brand name or packaging for retail sale. The product is not intended for human consumption.

Application of Law to Facts: Since the product is a residue/waste from starch manufacture, it falls squarely under HSN 2303.10, attracting 5% GST, rather than HSN 1106 which covers primary flour products intended for human consumption. The exemption under HSN 1106 applies to flour of tapioca roots or tubers not bearing a registered brand name and not packed in unit containers, which is not the case here as the product is a residue and used as animal feed.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The applicant argued that their product is made from inferior tapioca tubers, not residues of starch manufacture, and hence should be classified under HSN 1106. However, the AAR found that the product is indeed derived from residues of the starch manufacturing process, as confirmed by the process flow and usage. The applicant's contention that the product is not a residue was not supported by the facts presented.

Conclusion: The product is correctly classified under HSN 2303.10 as residues of starch manufacture and similar residues, attracting GST at 5%. The claim for classification under HSN 1106 at NIL rate is not sustainable.

Issue 2: Applicability of Exemption Notifications

Relevant Legal Framework: Notification No. 02/2017-CT (Rate) exempts certain goods including flour of manioc or cassava under specific conditions (e.g., no registered brand name, not packed in unit containers). The exemption applies to goods fit for human consumption.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AAR noted that the exemption does not apply to residues or waste products used as animal feed. Since the applicant's product is a residue of starch manufacture and not fit for human consumption, the exemption does not apply.

Key Evidence and Findings: Applicant's own submissions confirmed the product is not for human consumption and is marketed for animal feed and adhesive manufacturing.

Application of Law to Facts: The exemption notification cannot be invoked as the product is a residue and not a primary flour product intended for human use.

Conclusion: The exemption notification does not apply; GST at 5% is correctly levied.

Issue 3: Tax Liability and Registration Requirement

Relevant Legal Framework: GST registration is mandatory for dealers exceeding prescribed turnover thresholds or dealing in taxable goods. Tax liability depends on correct classification of goods.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: Since the product is taxable at 5%, the dealer is liable to pay GST and is required to register if turnover exceeds the threshold.

Key Evidence and Findings: Applicant is a dealer in taxable goods; no exemption from registration applies.

Conclusion: The applicant is liable to pay GST at 5% and required to register under GST law.

Issue 4: Rectification of Advance Ruling under Section 102 of CGST Act

Relevant Legal Framework: Section 102 allows rectification of any "error apparent on the face of the record" within six months of the order. Rectification cannot enhance tax liability or reduce input tax credit without hearing the applicant.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AAR carefully examined the original ruling and the rectification application. The applicant failed to specify any apparent error in the original ruling. The facts and legal analysis in the original ruling were found to be correct and consistent with the law and facts presented.

Key Evidence and Findings: No new facts or legal errors were demonstrated by the applicant. The original ruling was based on the correct classification and applicable legal provisions.

Application of Law to Facts: Since no error apparent on the face of the record was established, no rectification was warranted.

Conclusion: The application for rectification is liable to be rejected under Section 98(2) of the CGST/TNGST Acts, 2017.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"The product traded by the applicant is rightly classifiable under Chapter heading 23031000 attracting 5% GST as 'Residues of starch manufacture and similar residues'."

"The exemption under tariff item 1106 does not apply to the product in question as it is a residue of starch manufacture and not fit for human consumption."

"No error or mistake apparent on the face of the record is noticed in the Advance Ruling No. 25/AAR/2023 dated 20.06.2023; hence, no rectification is warranted under Section 102 of the CGST Act, 2017."

"The application for rectification is liable for rejection in terms of Section 98(2) of the CGST/TNGST Acts, 2017."

Core principles established include the strict interpretation of classification based on the manufacturing process and end use of the product, the applicability of exemption notifications only to primary products fit for human consumption, and the limited scope of rectification under Section 102 to errors apparent on the face of the record.

Final determinations: The original Advance Ruling stands affirmed; the product is taxable at 5% under HSN 2303.10; exemption under HSN 1106 does not apply; the rectification application is rejected for lack of any apparent error.

---