Sir,
Notification No 01/2017 CT-R dated 28-06-2017 as amended by Notification No. 6/2022-Central Tax (Rate) dated 13-07-2022w.e.f. 18-07-2022 reads as under:
Schedule I – 2.5%
51. | 1006 | Rice, pre-packaged and labelled |
Clause (ii) of Explanation to Notification - The expression ‘pre-packaged and labelled’ means a ‘pre-packaged commodity’ as defined in clause (l) of section 2 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) where, the package in which the commodity is pre-packed or a label securely affixed thereto is required to bear the declarations under the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) and the rules made thereunder.
Section 2(l) of LM Act, 2009 states: (l) "pre-packaged commodity" means a commodity which without the purchaser being present is placed in a package of whatever nature, whether sealed or not, so that the product contained therein has a pre-determined quantity;
So any pre-determined quantity ( whether 25 Kgs or more) placed in a package without presence of the purchaser is "pre-packed commodity" as per LM Act, 2009 irrespective of whether it is 25 Kgs or not.
So when a declaration is required to be made in package or label affixed to such pre-packed commodity as per the requirement of LM Act, it becomes taxable under GST Notification. But, the FAQ No. F. No. 190354/172/2022-TRU dated 17-7-2022 goes on to state that:
"However, a package of say rice containing 50 Kg (in one individual package) would not be considered a pre-packaged and labelled commodity for the purposes of GST levy, even if rule 24 of Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, mandates certain declarations to be made on such wholesale package."
Thus, the FAQ itself accepts that declarations are required for wholesale package but for reasons best known to CBIC, it goes on to say that it will not be a "pre-packaged and labelled commodity" for GST levy.
The Department may in future take a view that it may be taxable as it falls within the ambit of Notification although the FAQ states otherwise:
Also, in my humble view, the binding nature of FAQ itself is questionable as regard to the taxability although one cannot be alleged with any suppression/ misstatement for following the FAQ.