M/s. Piyush Jayanti lal Dobaria (Jay Khodiyar Agency)
Case brief
What is this about?
The Authority for Advance Ruling modified a prior Ruling to classify papad of different shapes and sizes under Tariff Heading 19059040. The court held these are exempt papad, not taxable unfried fryums, allowing NIL GST.
What did the court decide?
The Advance Ruling was modified to classify the product as Papad under Tariff Heading 19059040, making it chargeable to NIL rate of GST.
What the court decided
GUJARAT APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
D/5, RAJYA KAR BHAVAN, ASHRAM ROAD,
AHMEDABAD – 380 009.
ADVANCE RULING(APPEAL) NO. GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2021/19 (IN APPLICATION NO. Advance Ruling/SGST&CGST/2020/AR/14)
Date : 28.06.2021
| Name and address of the appellant |
: | M/s. Piyush Jayantilal Dobaria (Jay Khodiyar Agency), “Mantraom”, Block No. 76, 10 Janta Society, Opp. LIC H.O., Tagore Road, Rajkot |
|---|---|---|
| GSTIN of the appellant | : | 24AJCPD002OG1Z9 |
| Advance Ruling No. and Date | : | GUJ/GAAR/R/60/2020 dated 30.7.2020 |
| Date of appeal | : | 29.08.2020 |
| Date of Personal Hearing | : | 15.12.2020 |
| Present for the appellant | : | Shri Nishant Shukla, Avocate |
At the outset we would like to make it clear that the provisions of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as CGST Act, 2017 and SGST Act, 2017) are in pari materia and have the same provisions in like matter and differ from each other only on a few specific provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is particularly made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the CGST Act would also mean reference to the corresponding similar provisions in the SGST Act.
- The present appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the CGST Act, 2017 and SGST Act, 2017 by M/s. Piyush Jayantilal Dobariya (hereinafter referred to as Appellant) against the Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/60/2020 dated 30.7.2020.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether papad of different shapes and sizes not ready to eat is taxable as 'unfried fryums' or exempt as 'papad'.
Whether 'fryums' represents a generic product name or merely a brand name and if product classification should be based on common parlance.
Whether the most specific tariff heading prevails over a residuary heading when applying the General Rule of Interpretation.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
M/s. Piyush Jayantilal Dobaria (Jay Khodiyar Agency)
- respondent
Gujarat Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling
Coram
J. P. Gupta
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court