Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful)

TaxTMI AI Drafter workflow from input facts to final legal draft Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Try Now
×

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
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2021 (4) TMI 1137

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to seizure of certain documents and stock of rice lying in the godowns. Eventually, the adjudicating authority i.e. the Assistant Commissioner of GST issued a Demand cum Show Cause Notice dated 11.03.2019 to the petitioner in which it was conveyed that on a prior intelligence that the petitioner was engaged in manufacturing, package and supply of branded rice in 25 kilogram bags having product names "Aahar Normal‟, "Aahar Gold‟ and "Aahar Premium‟ without payment of GST, enforcement officers of the department visited the factory premises of the petitioner on 17.07.2018 and found that the petitioner was supplying branded packaged rice in unit containers without payment of GST. Therefore, bill books, order books and several bags of branded rice packaged while Sarvasiddhi Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. i.e. the petitioner-company were seized. It was alleged that as per the bill books so seized along with the sales statements submitted by the noticees, it would emerge that for the period between 01.07.2017 to 17.07.2018, the petitioner had sold branded rice of Aahar Normal, Aahar Gold and Aahar Premium total taxable value of which came to Rs. 27,28,85,021/-. It was pointed out th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t Commissioner of GST did not accept these defences of the petitioner and passed the impugned order dated 03.07.2020 in which he referred to the documents and other materials seized during the raid at the premises of the petitioner-company. He noted that during such raid, 1975 bags of Aahar Normal rice, 802 bags of Aahar Gold and 445 bags of Aahar Premium were seized which were later on released on production of bank guarantee by the petitioner. He also referred to invoices and bills of supply of such products by the petitioner during the period under consideration. On basis of such materials he came to the conclusion that the petitioner was supplying branded rice in packaged units. The petitioner's declaration for forgoing actionable claim on the un-registered brand of Aahar Normal, Aahar Gold and Aahar Premium was rejected on the ground that the same was without accompanying affidavit which was required as per the Notification. He rejected the petitioner's defence that the quantity of branded packaged rice seized from the godowns of the company was only for internal use. He eventually held the petitioner liable to pay CGST and SGST at prescribed rates with interest and penalty. H....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....plied rice bags with any kind of package markings. Moreover, the appellant contended that they are not having any registered Brand name/Trade name for supply of rice packaged markings, requiring payment of 5% GST under the Notification No.27/2017 CT (Rate) dated 22.09.2017/ Apart from, intimation submitted to the CGST authorities regarding supply of Rice without package marking after introduction of the said notification. The appellant reiterated that neither cross examination was allowed nor relied upon documents were supplied in support of allegations by the adjudicating authority. 10. I find that the appellant has submitted additional submission/clarification with regard to personal hearing held on 01.12.2020. It reveals from the copies of sale register that the appellant has disposed packet rice 25 Kg./50kg from 01.07.2017 to 03.07.2018. In the said register appellant incorporated Bill No, Gate pass No. Description of quantity, weight, rate apart from Party‟s name and address. In addition the appellant submitted replacement register, and it come from the said register that 1960 quantity bags and total 50500 kg of rice was dispatched from 05.07.2017 to 11.07.2018 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tax. The department on its own efforts detected the case and raised the demand otherwise it would have been unnoticed. Hence, invocation of extended period under Section 74(1) of the CGST, 2017 read with Section 74(1) of Tripura SGST, 2017 in the instant case is justified. The provisions of Section 74(11) of the CGST, 2017 read with Sec. 74(11) of Tripura SGST, 2017 is also applicable to the appellant. Appeal disallowed. 13. Held accordingly, the appeal filed by M/s. Sarvasiddhi Agrotect Pvt. Ltd. P.O. R.K. Nagar, West Tripura is disposed off in the above terms." 6. Under CGST Act and SGST Act further Appeal would be available before a Tribunal to be constituted for such purpose. Against the order that the Tribunal may pass, the person aggrieved would have a right of Appeal before the High Court only on substantial question of law. However, since the Tribunal is not yet constituted the petitioner has filed the present petition to challenge the order in original and order in Appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not supplying branded packaged rice and therefore, the supply of the petitioner was exempt from GST levies. He submi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of the stock was lying because of quality disputes, was not backed by any evidence and was therefore correctly not accepted by the authorities. Lastly, the petitioner's contention that the brand was not a registered brand and therefore the petitioner had no liability to pay tax also was rightly not accepted. As pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner himself under a Notification dated 22.09.2017 issued by the Government of India, following amendment in the previous Notification was made: "(v) in S. No. 49, in column (3), for the words "put up in unit container and bearing a registered brand name", the words brackets and letters "put up in unit container and, - (a) bearing a registered brand name; or (b) bearing a brand name on which an actionable claim or enforceable right in a court of law is available [other than those where any such actionable claim or enforceable right in respect of such brand name has been voluntarily foregone, subject to the conditions as specified in the ANNEXURE]", shall be substituted;" 10. As per this amendment, thus, for the original expression of "put up in unit container and bearing a registered brand name" what is....