TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot accept the petitioner s ground of the seized rice being only for the internal use and purposes. There are no 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 ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue of which came to ₹ 27,28,85,021/-. It was pointed out that as per various Notifications issued by the GST council, the terms brand name, registered brand name, actionable claim etc. have been defined. In the notice, it was also pointed out that the petitioner was supplying packaged rice containing marks like 'Aahar rice' with specific image on the container units. It was therefore alleged that the petitioner was supplying rice in unit containers bearing brand names such as Sarvasiddhi Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. and Aahar Normal, Aahar Gold and Aahar Premium on which an actionable claim or enforceable right in a court of law is available. It was also alleged that the noticee had not voluntarily forgone the actionable claim or enforceable right in respect of the brands in question. In view of these averments, it was alleged that the assessee was liable to pay CGST as well as SGST at prescribed rates on the taxable value of its sales for the period in question which was assessed at ₹ 1,03,35,028/-. The noticee was therefore called upon to show cause why such tax with interest and penalty not be recovered. 3. Copy of the reply filed by the petitioner in response to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to pay CGST and SGST at prescribed rates with interest and penalty. He thereupon passed following order: ORDER 1. I confirm the demand of Goods Services Tax of ₹ 1,03,35,028.50 (Rupees one crore three lakh thirty-five thousand twenty-eight and paisa fifty) (CGST ₹ 51,67,514.25 plus SGST R ₹ 51,67,514.25) under the Section 74(9) of the Central Goods Services Tax 2017 read with Section 74(9) of the Tripura State Goods Services Tax 2017. 2. I order the Noticee to pay interest at the applicable rate on the amount of confirmed demand of Tax of ₹ 1,03,35,028.50 (Rupees one crore three lakh thirty-five thousand twenty-eight and paisa fifty) in terms of Section 50(1) of the Central Goods Services Tax 2017 read with Section 50(1) of the Tripura State Goods Services Tax 2017. 3. I impose penalty equivalent of confirmed demand of Tax of ₹ 1,03,35,028.50 (Rupees one crore three lakh thirty-five thousand twenty-eight and paisa fifty) in terms of Section 74(1) of the Central Goods Services Tax 2017 read with Section 74(1) of the Tripura State Goods Services Tax 2017. 4. The Noticee is also informed that in terms of the Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ags and total 50500 kg of rice was dispatched from 05.07.2017 to 11.07.2018 but from the cross-check of the scrutiny is not possible to ascertained the authentication as the entire pages of sales register has not been forwarded by the appellant. The appellant also produced a copy of letter to the department seeking clarification regarding sale of branded rice. I also find from the order in original that the adjudicating authority imposed duty on the rice found in the factory awaiting for supply which was computed as per the provisions of the Notification No. 27/2017 CT (Rate) dated 22.09.2017 for safeguarding the revenue. 11. On going through the contention of the appellant I find that party had supplied rice with marking Sarvasiddhi Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. besides Aahar Normal,‟ Aahar Gold,‟ Aahar Premium‟ etc. Records i.e. Invoices and sales register, with other contact details for customer as per Legal Metrology Act and Food Safety and Standard Act is established that the product belonged to the Brand guardian and thus violated the provisions of Notification No.27/2017 CT (Rate) dated 22.09.2017 with intend to evading payment of GST under Section 74(p) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the supply of the petitioner was exempt from GST levies. He submitted that the authority has committed a serious error in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was supplying branded rice in packaged units. He pointed out that the brands Aahar Normal, Aahar Gold and Aahar Premium were not registered brands and therefore, would not come within the purview of taxable supplies. He also submitted that the seized quantity of rice was only meant for internal use and not for sale. In any case, no demand of GST can arise unless and until the goods are supplied. In the present case, the GST authorities have based their assessment on quantity of rice found in the godown. 8. We have noticed that on a prior intelligence, the officials of GST department had carried out a surprise visit to the premises of the petitioner- company from where several incriminating documents and sizable quantity of packaged rice were seized. The invoices and other sales details established that for the period under consideration, the petitioner had supplied rice in packages of 25 kg each which carried the brand name Aahar Normal, Aahar Gold or Aahar Premium. Sizable quantity of such packaged branded rice wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t container and bearing a registered brand name what is now substituted is that it should be put in unit container and may be bearing a registered brand name or bearing a brand name on which an actionable claim or enforceable right in a court of law is available. Thus, from the previous requirement of supply of goods in unit container and bearing a registered brand name, the expanded requirement is of the same either bearing of registered brand name or bearing a brand name on which actionable claim or enforceable right in a court of law is available. Thus, the requirement of the brand name being registered is no longer necessary. This Notification itself, however, provides that the exemption could be availed where such actionable claim or enforceable right in respect of such brand name has been voluntarily forgone subject to the conditions specified in the Notification. 11. The brand names under which the petitioner was selling the rice may not have been registered, nevertheless it could lead to an actionable claim in a court of law. In order to avoid inviting liability of tax, the petitioner had to forgone such actionable claim which also the authorities found the petitioner h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
