Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : S Sarvasiddhi Agrotech Pvt. Ltd Vs Union of India (Tripura High Court)
Appeal Number : W.P. (C) No.279/2021
Date of Judgement/Order : 20/04/2021
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

S. Sarvasiddhi Agrotech Pvt. Ltd Vs Union of India (Tripura High Court)

In this case department had issued the notice to the supplier on the count that they are selling the rice under the marking as Aahar normal, Aahar Gold, Aahar premium. It was alleged by the department that these markings are nothing but the brand name and since the supplier has not forgone the actionable claim/ enforceable right, they are supposed to discharge GST at 5% on the clearance. On the other side, the supplier has taken the plea that the words like Aahar normal, Aahar Gold, Aahar premium are not the brand name, but their internal arrangement to indicate the quality variety. While disposing the petition, it was observed by Hon’ble High Court-

“9. We do not find any error in the view of the authorities. Firstly, the conclusions of these authorities are based on assessment of materials on record. Secondly, the seizure of sizable quantity of packaged branded rice was an indication of the petitioner dealing in such product. Thirdly, the tax is not demanded on rice stored and seized but on the quantity of rice already supplied which was assessed from the bill books and invoices seized from the premises of the petitioner-company. Further, the petitioner’s defence that the quantity of rice lying in the godowns was merely for internal use was also not backed by any evidence. Close to three thousand bags of rice were found lying in the godown. The petitioner’s bare contention that it was not meant for supply but only for internal purposes of grading the rice or part 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

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Author Bio


My Published Posts

GST Applicability on Branded Cereals View More Published Posts

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031