Jenefa India VS Union Of India

Certainly! Here’s a detailed summary based on the information provided:

The writ petitions being discussed in this case all pertain to a single issue. With the agreement of the legal representatives for both sides, the court decided to hear all the petitions together and provide a collective ruling. Given that the facts are consistent across these cases, it was deemed convenient and efficient to present the facts based on W.P.(MD)No.16770 of 2019 for easy reference.

In the case of W.P.(MD)No.16770 of 2019, the petition addresses a set of circumstances that are mirrored in the other writ petitions. These petitions likely involve similar legal arguments, factual backgrounds, and requests for relief. By consolidating the cases, the court aims to streamline the proceedings and avoid repetitive discussions of identical or substantially similar issues.

The common issue at hand, which serves as the focal point of these writ petitions, will be thoroughly examined and addressed in this collective order. This approach ensures fairness, consistency, and efficiency in the legal process.

The petitioner in this case is a manufacturer of fish meal, producing it in powder form. They are a registered entity under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department, specifically falling within the jurisdiction of the third respondent. This registration signifies their compliance with GST regulations, making them an assessee under the oversight of officers subordinate to and under the administrative control of the third respondent.

Being a fish meal manufacturer, the petitioner’s operations involve the production of this essential product in powder form. This fish meal likely serves various industries, including aquaculture, agriculture, and pet food, given its high nutritional value. The GST registration is crucial for their business, ensuring they adhere to tax laws and regulations set forth by the government.

By being under the jurisdiction of the third respondent, the petitioner is subject to the rules and assessments conducted by the officers of the GST Department. These officers, being under the administrative control of the third respondent, are responsible for overseeing the petitioner’s tax filings, compliance, and any other related matters.

This summary highlights the petitioner’s role as a manufacturer of fish meal, their registration under the GST Department, and their position as an assessee under the third respondent’s jurisdiction. It establishes the petitioner’s status within the regulatory framework, emphasizing their compliance with tax laws and their role within the broader industry of fish meal production.

The petitioner in this case is a manufacturer of fish meal, producing it in powder form. Registered under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department, specifically under the jurisdiction of the third respondent, the petitioner is recognized as an assessee by officers under the administrative control of the third respondent.

The process of manufacturing fish meal involves several steps. Initially, the petitioner procures fresh fish, which is then taken to a steam cooker for steam boiling within the plant. Once steamed, the fish is processed further through a squeezer, extracting the solid part. The resulting material, with excess moisture removed, is conveyed to a pulverizer, resulting in the powder form of fish meal. This fish meal is then packaged in sacks for sale.

With the implementation of the GST regime starting from July 1, 2017, the Central Government issued two significant notifications. The first, known as “Notification No.1/17,” was released on June 28, 2017, while the second, “Notification No.2/17,” was also issued on the same date. These notifications likely detail the taxation rates or provisions related to the petitioner’s fish meal manufacturing business under the GST framework.

The petitioner is a manufacturer of fish meal, producing it in powder form. They are registered under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department within the jurisdiction of the third respondent, and are an assessee under the administrative control of said respondent. The manufacturing process begins with the procurement of fresh fish, which is then steam boiled in the plant’s steam cooker. The steam-boiled fish is then sent to a squeezer to extract the solid parts, followed by a steam drier to remove excess moisture. The resulting material is then pulverized into powder form, which is finally packed into sacks for sale.

Following the implementation of the GST regime effective from July 1, 2017, the Central Government issued two key notifications: Notification No.1 of 2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated June 28, 2017 (referred to as “Notification No.1/17”), and Notification No.2 of 2017, Central Tax (Rate) dated June 28, 2017 (referred to as “Notification No.2/17”). These notifications, issued under the powers conferred by Sub-Section 1 of Section 9 & 11 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), provided rates of tax (Schedules) for specified goods under CGST in Schedules I to VI.

Under Notification No.1/17, the rate of tax for specified goods in different Schedules was defined. For goods in the first Schedule, the tax rate was fixed at 2.5% for the Central share, making it 5% in total. In the second Schedule, it was 6%, totaling 12%. The third Schedule had a rate of 9%, making it 18% in total, while the fourth Schedule was 14%, totaling 28%. The fifth Schedule had a rate of 1.5%, making it 3% in total, and the sixth Schedule goods were taxed at 0.125%, totaling 0.250%.

In the context of the present issue, Schedule I goods are relevant, which are liable to be taxed at the rate of 5% GST. Specifically, serial number 103 under Schedule I is pertinent to the petitioner’s fish meal manufacturing process. This establishes the tax rate applicable to the petitioner’s product within the GST framework.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law;