GST exemption for frozen meat fails where binding advance rulings treat branded unit-container supplies as taxable and require reimbursement.

Frozen meat supplied in unit containers and sold as branded goods was treated as taxable at five per cent, so the claimed exemption under Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate) did not apply. The advance rulings were binding on the taxpayer under Section 103 of the CGST Act, and that binding effect governed the GST liability. Because the tax had been discharged on the supplies, the buyer could not retain the amount on the premise of exemption and was required to reimburse the GST paid, subject to the stipulated consequence for delay.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petitioner's supply of frozen meat was covered by the GST exemption under Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 29.06.2017; and (ii) whether, in view of the advance rulings, the petitioner was entitled to reimbursement of the GST paid.

Issue (i): whether the petitioner's supply of frozen meat was covered by the GST exemption under Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 29.06.2017.

Analysis: The advance ruling authorities had already determined that the goods were supplied in unit containers, were branded and sold on actual rate basis, and therefore attracted GST at five per cent. The authorities also held that the supplies did not fall within the claimed exemption entry under the 2017 notification. That determination was treated as conclusive for the petitioner's liability.

Conclusion: The supply was not exempt from GST.

Issue (ii): whether, in view of the advance rulings, the petitioner was entitled to reimbursement of the GST paid.

Analysis: Under Section 103 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the advance rulings were binding on the petitioner. Since the petitioner was required to discharge GST on the supplies and had in fact deposited the tax, the respondents had no basis to withhold reimbursement on the premise of exemption.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to reimbursement of the GST paid.

Final Conclusion: The exemption claim failed, the binding advance rulings governed the petitioner's tax liability, and the respondents were required to reimburse the balance GST amount with the stipulated consequence for delay.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an advance ruling conclusively determines that goods are not exempt and such ruling is binding on the taxpayer, the payer is entitled to reimbursement of GST actually discharged from the counterparty that withheld payment on the mistaken premise of exemption.

---