2025 (3) TMI 159 - AAR - GST

Scope of Advance Ruling application - whether the supply of processed sea food (frozen) like prawn and fish to industrial or institutional customers in industrial pack-not for retail sale is taxable or exempted? - HELD THAT - The question on which advance ruling is sought by the applicant is found to be covered under clause (e) of sub-section (2) of section 97 of the GST Act. The applicant has been provided sufficient opportunities of being heard. The officer concerned from the revenue relying on the FAQ issued vide F. No. 190354/172/2022 TRU dated 17.07.2022 has opined that the goods in question is exempted subject to fulfilment of certain conditions. Otherwise it would attract tax @ 5%. However in absence of any submission supported by documentary evidences on behalf of the applicant it is unable to decide whether the applicant supplies the goods in such manner as to attract exclusion provided under the said rule 3(c) of the Legal Metrological (Package Commodities) Rules 2011.

Summary

The Authority for Advance Ruling, West Bengal, considered an application seeking a ruling on whether the supply of processed sea food items like prawn and fish to industrial or institutional customers in 'industrial pack-not for retail sale' is taxable or exempted under the GST Act. The key issues presented and considered in this case include the classification of goods for tax purposes, the applicability of relevant notifications, and the determination of liability to pay tax on the mentioned goods.The applicant contended that the supply of sea food items to industrial or institutional customers falls under an exemption from GST as per specific notifications and rules. The officer from the revenue department opined that if the supply meets certain conditions, it would be exempt from GST, otherwise attracting a 5% tax rate.Despite providing multiple opportunities for the applicant to present their case, including scheduled hearings and extensions, the applicant failed to appear or provide any supporting documents. Consequently, the Authority proceeded to dispose of the application ex parte, as they were unable to make a ruling without sufficient evidence from the applicant.In conclusion, the Authority refrained from issuing a ruling due to the lack of substantiated submissions from the applicant, despite the revenue officer's opinion on the potential exemption of the goods in question. The decision was based on the absence of documentary evidence supporting the applicant's claims, leading to the inability to determine whether the goods qualified for the exemption under the Legal Metrological (Package Commodities) Rules, 2011.