9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Schedule has been downloaded by the petitioner from the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs website. As far as the packing materials are concerned, it appears to be a part of the composite supply with the exempted product as defined in Section 2(30) read with Section 8(a) of the respective GST enactments. The petitioner has made out a prima facie case on merits and warranting interference. Further, the petitioner has neglected in not responding to the respective notices that preceded the respective impugned orders. The Court is of the view that the impugned orders can be set aside on terms. The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the credit of the respondent from its Electronic Cash Register within a period of 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner was also unaware of the impugned orders passed as detailed above, the petitioner has failed to approach this Court at an earlier point of time. 6. Specifically, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is engaged in sale/supply of live honey bees, which is exempted from tax in terms of serial No.6 to the Schedule 1 to the GST Act, 2017. 7. It is submitted that the respondent has treated the value of the packing material for selling live honey bees as a value of supply and has demanded tax from the petitioner. 8. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to Section 8(a) of the respective GST enactments, in which, in terms of composite supply comprising two or more sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner may not be liable to GST in terms of Schedule 1 of the GST Act, 2017. The Schedule has been downloaded by the petitioner from the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs website. 14. As far as the packing materials are concerned, it appears to be a part of the composite supply with the exempted product as defined in Section 2(30) read with Section 8(a) of the respective GST enactments. 15. Thus, in my view, the petitioner has made out a prima facie case on merits and warranting interference. Further, the petitioner has neglected in not responding to the respective notices that preceded the respective impugned orders. 16. Considering the same, the Court is of the view that the impugned orders can be set aside on terms. The petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
