2018 (9) TMI 1184 - AAAR - GST

Slaughtering processing of Sheep/Goat meat and supplies these products to Army against tenders issued by the Indian Army - supplies in unit containers or not? - Whether the supplies being made by the appellant to Army in respect of meat of sheep/goat in packages (a sample of packing material was produced before us) can be considered as supplies in unit containers or not in terms of the explanation under Notification No. 1/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28/06/2017 as amended? Held that - The nature of supplies is such that it is not possible to decide the exact quantity (either weight or volume) or the number in advance in respect of the packages to be sent to Army as the goods of supply are natural, not man made, and no two animals are same. Also, there is no such requirement from the buyer side i.e. Army who have floated the tender on total weight basis and the payments are also made monthly/fortnightly and not as per packages or consignments. The concept of pre-determined quantity or number is possible when the buyer/customer/consumer/recipient is aware in advance i.e. before the purchase/receipt of the said goods about the fixed quantity/weight/number contained in the package which is not the case here. Regarding marking and labeling also, Army has prescribed certain details to be printed/ mentioned on the packages like date of manufacture, lot number/batch number, firm s name and address, storage instructions, thawing instructions, for defence purpose only etc. It has not been prescribed that the actual number of carcass inside the HDPE bag or the individual weight of the carcass is required to be indicated/mentioned on the HDPE bag. There cannot be any pre-determined quantity or number in the packages and when there cannot be any pre-determined quantity or number inside the package there is no question of indication of the same on the package. Therefore, the frozen meat of goat/sheep supplied by the appellant to Army in HDPE bags does not qualify for the supplies made in unit containers as per definition provided in the explanation to the notification no. 01/2017-IGST (Rate) dt. 28-06-2017 as amended. Ruling - The whole (Sheep/Goat) animal carcass in its natural shape in frozen state in different weight and size packed in LDPE bags without mentioning the weight and one or two such LDPE bags further packed in HDPE bags being supplied to Army by appellant against tender shall not qualify as product put up in Unit Container .

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Definition of "Unit Container" under GST law.
2. Taxability of sheep/goat meat in frozen state and packed as described.
3. Interpretation of exemption notifications under GST.
4. Comparison with pre-GST VAT regime.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Definition of "Unit Container" under GST Law:
The main contention revolves around whether the packaging used by the appellant qualifies as a "Unit Container" under GST law. The appellant argued that their packaging does not meet the definition of "Unit Container" as it does not hold a predetermined quantity or number, which is a requirement as per the notification. The definition provided in the notification states that a "unit container" means a package designed to hold a predetermined quantity or number, which is indicated on such package. The appellant's packaging varies in weight and size because no two animal carcasses are of the same weight and size, and thus, the packaging does not hold a predetermined quantity.

2. Taxability of Sheep/Goat Meat in Frozen State and Packed as Described:
The appellant supplies frozen sheep/goat meat to the Army in LDPE bags, which are then packed into HDPE bags. The Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) initially decided that these supplies were in unit containers and thus chargeable to GST. However, the appellant contested this, arguing that the varying weights and the lack of predetermined quantities mean the packaging does not qualify as unit containers. The appellate authority agreed with the appellant, stating that the frozen meat supplied in HDPE bags does not qualify as being in unit containers as per the definition provided in the GST notification.

3. Interpretation of Exemption Notifications under GST:
The appellant sought clarity on whether their interpretation of the exemption notifications was correct. The exemption notifications under GST law stipulate that GST is chargeable if the product is "Frozen" and put up in "Unit Container" (and "Branded" after 15th November 2017). The appellant argued that their supplies do not meet these conditions because their packaging does not hold a predetermined quantity or number. The appellate authority agreed, stating that since the packaging does not hold a predetermined quantity or number, it does not qualify as a unit container, and thus, the supplies are eligible for exemption.

4. Comparison with Pre-GST VAT Regime:
The jurisdictional officer pointed out that the appellant was paying VAT on the same activity in the pre-GST era. The appellant confirmed that they collected and paid VAT on frozen meat in sealed containers. However, the appellate authority noted that the conditions for chargeability to tax under GST are different from those under VAT. The conditions of "Frozen and sealed" under VAT do not equate to the "Unit Container" requirement under GST. Therefore, the applicability of VAT in the pre-GST regime does not render the supplies chargeable to GST.

Conclusion:
Based on the detailed analysis, the appellate authority concluded that the whole animal carcass in its natural shape in frozen state, packed in LDPE bags without mentioning the weight, and further packed in HDPE bags, does not qualify as being put up in "Unit Container" as per the GST notification. Consequently, the supplies made by the appellant to the Army are not chargeable to GST under the conditions specified in the notifications. The ruling given by the Maharashtra AAR was modified, and the appeal was allowed.