Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post a Query
Post a New Query
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Discussion Forum

Back

All Issues

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
OR
Search by Issue ID:
NOTE: If you have inputs in both the fields, then results will be shown for issueId first.
Issue ID :

RICE- BRAND NAME NOT REGISTERED IN ANY ACTIONABLE CLAIM

PN ELAMPARRUTHY

Tax payer selling a rice in brand name not registered no actionable claimed, affidavit filed only 2019 sep that to filed in GST range office only acknowledment copy recieved and got sign in delivery note now order passed against tax payer that filed affidavit is not valid and exemption is not allowed to brand name (not registered ) rice, tax calculated from from july 2017 to 2024 any case laws related to my issue ... ( 'Sarvasiddhi Agrotech Pvt. Ltd' ) Shyam Agro Foods v. GST Commissioner (2021) this case are favour to tax payer

2021 (4) TMI 1137 - TRIPURA HIGH COURT

Taxpayer Denied GST Exemption for Unregistered Brand; Liable for Taxes from 2017 to 2022 Under Notification No. 28/2017. A taxpayer selling rice under an unregistered brand name filed an affidavit in 2019 with the GST range office, claiming exemption. However, a ruling determined the affidavit invalid, and exemption was denied for the unregistered brand, leading to tax liabilities from July 2017 to 2024. A case, 'Shyam Agro Foods v. GST Commissioner,' was referenced as potentially favorable. Replies noted GST provisions have changed, emphasizing the need for pre-packaged and pre-labelled criteria. The taxpayer failed to meet conditions for exemption under Notification No. 28/2017, making them liable for taxes on supplies incorrectly classified as exempt from September 2017 to July 2022. (AI Summary)
answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Issues