In Re : Photo Products Company Pvt Ltd
GST
2018 (6) TMI 38 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING – WEST BENGAL – 2018 (13) G. S. T. L. 337 (A. A. R. – GST), [2018] 2 GSTL (AAR) 59 (AAR)
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING – WEST BENGAL – AAR
Dated:- 30-5-2018
Case Number 09 of 2018 – Order No. 06\/WBAAR\/2018-19
GST
Vishwanath Member And Parthasarathi Dey Member
\nApplicant's representative heard Sri Parag Kothari, Advocate
\nRULING
\n1. The Applicant is stated to be printing content supplied by the customers on photographic paper. An Advance Ruling is sought regarding the nature and classification of the activity – whether it is supply of goods or service and whether the activity carried out by the Applicant is taxable under HSN 4911 or SAC 9989. Advance Ruling is admissible on this question under section 97(2)(a) of the CGST\/WBGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter the GST Act).
\nThe Applicant also declares that the issue raised in the application is not pending or decided in any proceedings<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n of computer or any other device, is classifiable under Heading 4911 of the First Schedule of the Custom Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the “the Tariff Act”), which is aligned to the GST Act for the purpose of classification. Heading 4911 of the Tariff Act classifies “Other [i.e. not earlier specified] printed matter, included printed pictures and photographs; such as Trade advertising material, Commercial catalogues and the like, printed Posters, Commercial catalogues, Printed inlay cards, Pictures, designs and photographs, Plan and drawings for architectural engineering, industrial, commercial, topographical or similar purpose reproduced with the aid of computer or any other device.” From the description, it is clear that such classification concerns pre-printed materials or prints which are supplied as such. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n med to have a bearing on this issue. A careful perusal of the judgments reveals that, most of them do not have any bearing to the instant case. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In Re : Photo Products Company Pvt LtdGST2018 (6) TMI 38 – AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING – WEST BENGAL – 2018 (13) G. S. T. L. 337 (A. A. R. – GST), [2018] 2 GSTL (AAR) 59 (AAR)AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING – WEST BENGAL – AARDated:- 30-5-2018Case Number 09 of 2018 – Order No. 06\/WBAAR\/2018-19GSTVishwanath … Continue reading “In Re : Photo Products Company Pvt Ltd”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12011","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12011","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12011"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12011\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12011"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12011"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12011"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nIt, however, appears from the application and the argument of the Applicant at the time of Personal Hearing that the content of the printed matters referred to ab<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nIn the case of State of Karnataka etc Vs. M\/s PROLAB and Others, and in the case of C.K. Jideesh vs UOI activities of Photo Labs are considered to be “Works Contract”. However, the activity of “Printing” does not come under “Works Contract” under Section 2(119) of the GST Act. Hence, the judgements are not found to be relevant to the instant case.
\nIn the case of Rainbow Colour Lab [(2000) 2 SCC 385] the Apex Court held that the dominant intention of the photo lab is provisioning service of printing where the supply of paper and chemicals are purely incidental. The Court held that the activity should be treated as “Service”.
\n5. Hence, the Applicant is providing a service, namely, the service of printing and is liable to be classified under SAC 9989.
\nIn view of the foregoing we rule as under
\nRULING
\nThe activity carried out by the Applicant<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n