Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + AAAR GST - 2025 (2) TMI AAAR This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2025 (2) TMI 94 - AAAR - GST


ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered in this judgment were:

a) The correct classification of the appellant's products under the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) for the purposes of determining the applicable Goods and Services Tax (GST) rate.

b) Whether the products should be classified under HSN 1101, 1102, or 1106, which would attract a lower GST rate of 5%, or under HSN 2106 90, which attracts an 18% GST rate.

c) Whether the products supplied with additional items (e.g., chutney powder or masala pack) should be considered a composite or mixed supply for GST purposes.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Classification under HSN 1101, 1102, or 1106

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The appellant argued that their products should be classified under HSN 1101, 1102, or 1106 based on the essential character of the flour. They cited the CBIC circular No. 80/54/2018-GST, which clarifies that flour improved by small amounts of additives can still fall under HSN 1106.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the composition of the products, noting that they contain significant proportions of spices and additives, which are not merely small amounts as contemplated by the circular. The Court also referenced the explanatory notes to HSN, which exclude flours with added substances for use as food preparations from headings 1101 and 1102.

Key evidence and findings: The products contain spices and additives in proportions ranging from 5% to 33.4%, which are not mentioned in the relevant HSN headings or explanatory notes.

Application of law to facts: Based on the composition of the products and the applicable HSN explanatory notes, the Court found that the products do not qualify for classification under HSN 1101, 1102, or 1106.

Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant's reliance on VAT regime precedents and the CBIC circular was dismissed as not applicable due to the significant presence of additives and spices in the products.

Conclusions: The Court concluded that the products do not merit classification under HSN 1101, 1102, or 1106.

Classification under HSN 2106 90

Relevant legal framework and precedents: HSN 2106 90 covers "Food preparations not elsewhere specified or included," which includes preparations for use after processing for human consumption.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the products are preparations consisting of foodstuffs used in making food preparations for human consumption. The products require processing, such as cooking or boiling, before consumption, which aligns with the scope of HSN 2106 90.

Key evidence and findings: The products are not ready-to-eat and require preparation, fitting the description of food preparations under HSN 2106 90.

Application of law to facts: The Court applied the explanatory notes to HSN 2106, finding that the products are appropriately classifiable under this heading as they are not specified elsewhere.

Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant's argument that the products are not ready-to-eat was addressed by clarifying that HSN 2106 90 is not limited to ready-to-eat foods.

Conclusions: The Court upheld the classification of the products under HSN 2106 90, attracting an 18% GST rate.

Composite vs. Mixed Supply

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The appellant argued that products supplied with chutney or masala should be considered a composite supply, with the principal supply determining the GST rate.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court agreed with the GAAR's finding that these are mixed supplies, as they are not naturally bundled and are supplied for a single price.

Key evidence and findings: The products and additional items are supplied together but do not constitute a naturally bundled supply.

Application of law to facts: The Court applied the definition of mixed supply, concluding that the GST rate for mixed supplies applies.

Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant's argument for composite supply was rejected based on the lack of natural bundling.

Conclusions: The Court upheld the mixed supply classification, applying the GST rate for mixed supplies.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court upheld the GAAR's ruling that the products are classifiable under HSN 2106 90, attracting an 18% GST rate. The Court found that the products do not qualify for classification under HSN 1101, 1102, or 1106 due to the presence of significant additives and spices. The Court also agreed with the GAAR's classification of certain supplies as mixed rather than composite.

Core principles established:

- The classification of products under GST must consider the composition and intended use of the products, as guided by HSN explanatory notes.

- Products containing significant additives and spices do not qualify for classification under headings meant for pure flours.

- The presence of additives and the requirement for processing align products with food preparations under HSN 2106 90.

- Supplies are classified as mixed when they do not exhibit natural bundling.

Final determinations on each issue:

- The products are classifiable under HSN 2106 90, attracting an 18% GST rate.

- The products do not qualify for classification under HSN 1101, 1102, or 1106.

- Supplies with additional items are considered mixed supplies.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates