Page 134 - GSTL_ 28th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 4

580 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
No. 114 of List I, specified under Entry No. 180 of Schedule I of the Notification
supra and therefore is leviable to GST @ 5%.
5.4 The applicant, in this regard, draws reference to the Nomenclature
guidelines provided by the US Pharmacopeia which states/gives the meaning of
the phrase “for injection” and contends that “any drug in the form of dry solids
which confirms with the requirements of injection on addition of a suitable vehicle are
covered under the category of (Drug for injection”.
5.5 The applicant relies on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in
the case of Indian Chamber of Commerce v. CIT, West Bengal II, Calcutta, wherein
the usage of the word ‘for’ has been noted, and thereby contends that “the word
‘for’ is succeeded by the purpose for which it is meant to be used” and therefore their
product is eligible for reduced rate of GST as it is meant for the use specified in
the notification, i.e. for injection.
6. In view of the above, the applicant submits that the impugned prod-
uct (bulk drug) would be used by their customers to manufacture formulations
or vials; the product may not be used directly for injection but in the form of
formulations or vials which cannot be manufactured without using the im-
pugned product. The applicant also furnished technical write-up on the product.
The applicant, concluding, prays that their product qualifies to be covered under
Sl. No. 114 of List-I specified under Entry No. 180 of Schedule-I to the Notifica-
tion No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017.
Personal Hearing/Proceedings held on 9-1-2020 :
7. Sri Harish Bindumadhavan, Advocate and duly authorised repre-
sentative of the applicant appeared for personal hearing proceedings held on 9-1-
2020 & reiterated the facts narrated in their application.
8. Findings & Discussion :
8.1 We have considered the submissions made by the Applicant in their
application for advance ruling as well as the submissions made by Sri Harish
Bindumadhavan, Advocate & duly authorised representative of the applicant
during the personal hearing. We have also considered the issues involved, on
which advance ruling is sought by the applicant, and relevant facts.
8.2 At the outset, we would like to state that the provisions of both the
CGST Act and the KGST Act are the same except for certain provisions. There-
fore, unless a mention is specifically made to such dissimilar provisions, a refer-
ence to the CGST Act would also mean a reference to the same provisions under
the KGST Act.
8.3 The applicant is engaged in procuring ‘Micafungin Sodium’ from
their SEZ unit after paying IGST at the rate of 5% and selling the same as Bulk
Drug to Third Party DTA units, who in turn use it for injections. The applicant
submitted that Micafungin Sodium is an organic antifungal chemical and have
provided a technical Eterature on it.
8.4 The applicant relied upon the United States Food and Drug Admin-
istration Regulations which defines, “Bulk Drugs” as any substance that is repre-
sented for use in a drug and that, when used in the manufacturing, processing,
or packaging of drug, becomes an active ingredient or a finished dosage form of
a drug, but the term does not include intermediates in the synthesis of such sub-
stances. They have further relied upon United States Pharmacopeia (USP) to ar-
gue that the term, “for injection” can also connote dry solids which upon addi-

GST LAW TIMES  28th May 2020  134