Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4) It is the case of the petitioner that when the GST regime was implemented with effect from 1.7.2017, there was confusion prevailing in the State of Gujarat with regard to classification of 'Fryums', NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16172/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2024 undefined however, a manufacturing unit by the name of M/s Sonal Product filed an application for advance ruling under section 97 of the GST Act seeking ruling on applicable rate of tax on supply of 'Papad' of different shapes and sizes which were commonly known as unfried fryums wherein it was held that unfried fryums are not 'papad' and therefore, exempt from tax and further it was held that unfried fryums are taxable at the rate of 18% under the GST Act.

5) The petitioner also filed application in the year 2019 for advance ruling in respect of applicable tax rate on unfried fryums.

6) It is the case of the petitioner that the Advance Ruling Authority vide order NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16172/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2024 undefined dated 17.09.2020 adopted the same line of reasoning as in the case of M/s. Sonal Products and took a view that unfried fryums attracted tax rate of 18%.

21. Learned advocate Ms. Sancheti also referred to decision of Kerala VAT Tribunal under Kerala Value Added Tax, 2003 wherein it is held that 'Papad' and 'Fryums' are both different product and 'Fryums' cannot be classified or treated as 'Papad'. It was therefore, submitted NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16172/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2024 undefined that as per the manufacturing process explained by the petitioners before the Appellate Authority, it clearly shows that there is extrusion process involved for manufacturing 'Fryums' and therefore, the impugned show cause notice has been issued invoking jurisdiction under section 74 of the GST Act calling upon the petitioners as to why GST at the rate of 18% should not be levied classifying the product manufactured by the petitioners under Tariff Item no. 19059030 till 27.07.2023.

46. Gujarat Authority of Advance Ruling in their ruling has ruled that the product in question 'different shapes and size Papad merit classifiable under CTH No. 21069099 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 on the grounds that PAPAD is a thing entirely different and distinct from FRYUMS. Therefore, in common parlance or in market, Fryums are not sold as "PAPAD" instead of "PAPAD" sold as papad and Fryums are sold as Fryums. Both the products are different and have their individual identity. Accordingly, in common parlance test, the applicant's products i.e. "different shapes and sizes of Papad" is not "Papad" but is "Un-fried Fryums". In the aforementioned paras, we have already discussed that the Fryums NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16172/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2024 undefined is a brand name and not a generic name of the product therefore, impugned product "different shapes and size of papad", known as Fryums, is nothing but Papad.