SGST High Court Cases

GST - Supply of unbranded goods or branded goods in unit container – Marking and grading of goods for internal purpose – supply of goods with any package markings with the unregistered brand name – Dept seized packaged rice during surprise visit to the premises of the petitioner – petitioner contention that the stock of rice found from the godowns was meant for internal use not meant for taxable supply and internal grading of rice as per the quality variety and price was strictly for internal use – petitioner challenge to confirmation of demand of GST under the provision of Notification No.27/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 22.09.2017 – HELD - The invoices and other sales details established that during the relevant period, the petitioner had supplied rice in packages which carried the brand name - the seizure of sizable quantity of packaged branded rice was an indication of the petitioner dealing in such product - the petitioner’s defence that the quantity of rice lying in the godowns was merely for internal use was also not backed by any evidence. Close to three thousand bags of rice were found lying in the godown. The petitioner’s bare contention that it was not meant for supply but only for internal purposes of grading the rice or part of the stock was lying because of quality disputes, was not backed by any evidence and was therefore correctly not accepted by the authorities - the petitioner’s contention that the brand was not a registered brand and therefore the petitioner had no liability to pay tax also was rightly not accepted. After the amendment to Notification No. 1/2017–Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 by Notification No. 27/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 22.09.2017, the previous requirement of supply of goods in unit container and bearing a registered brand name, the expanded requirement is of the same either bearing of registered brand name or bearing a brand name on which actionable claim or enforceable right in a court of law is available. Thus, the requirement of the brand name being registered is no longer necessary - The brand names under which the petitioner was selling the rice may not have been registered, nevertheless it could lead to an actionable claim in a court of law. In order to avoid inviting liability of tax, the petitioner had to forgone such actionable claim, which the petitioner had not done – demand of GST with interest is confirmed and the petition is dismissed

Quick Search


Advance Search

Create Account

Log In

Forgot Password

Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page