In a recent decision[1], the Bombay High Court ruled that tea qualifies as an agricultural produce warehousing services in relation to it are exempt from GST as specified in Notification No. 12 of 2017. The writ was filed by the petitioner against rulings of advance and appellate advance ruling authorities which held that tea which underwent process of blending/mixing ceased to be an agricultural produce. The High Court also made a pertinent observation about the scope of a CBIC Circular and whether it can dilute a statutory Notification.
Facts
The petitioner was licensed for carrying the warehouse business under the Bombay Warehouses Act, 1959. The petitioner had let one if its warehouse to M/s Unilever India Export Ltd (‘Unilever’). Unilever would procure tea at public auctions and directly from manufacturers and would undertake blending and packing of the tea at the petitioner’s warehouse. The petitioner was of the view that tea was an agricultural produce under Clause 2(d) of the Notification No. 12 of 2017 and thus warehousing services provided to such a product were exempt form GST as specified under Serial No. 54(e) of the said Notification.
The relevant portions of the Notification No. 12 of 2017 state that:
Clause 2(d):
“agricultural produce” means any produce out of cultivation of plants and rearing of all life forms of animals, except the rearing of horses, for food, fibre, fuel, raw material or other similar products, on which either no further processing is done or such processing is done as is usually done by a cultivator or producer which does not alter its essential characteristics but makes it marketable for primary market;”
And, Serial No. 54(e) of the Notification No. 12 of 2017 exempts from GST the loading, unloading, packing, storage or warehousing of agricultural produce.
Reading both the provisions together suggests that warehousing services related to agricultural produce were exempt from GST. The petitioner’s primary contention was that manufacturing and packaging of tea undertaken by Unilever did not alter the essential characteristics of tea and were undertaken to make it fit for human consumption and marketable. It was further argued that every agricultural product undergoes some treatment to make it fit for human consumption, save it from perishing and to make it fit for transportation. The ‘minimal’ processes undertaken by Unilever, as per the petitioner, did not change the nature of tea and it retained the character of an agricultural produce. The Revenue, on the other hand, argued that the kind of processes undertaken by Unilever required plant and machinery and cannot be categorized as minimal processes undertaken to make tea fit for primary market. And that tea ceased to an agricultural produce after undergoing the processes undertaken by Unilever.
High Court Relies on Supreme Court Decision
The Bombay High Court, in determining the nature of processes undertaken by Unilever and their effect on tea relied cited D.S. Bist and Sons case [2] (which was relied on heavily by the petitioners) where it was held that tea leaf that underwent the process of withering, roasting, crushing and fermentation continued to be an agricultural produce since the process was to ensure that the flavor and color of tea leaves was brought out, but tea still retained its essential characteristics. The High Court held that the facts and observations in D.S. Bist and Sons case should have persuaded the advance ruling authorities and appellate advance ruling authorities to have come to a similar conclusion. (para 26) As per the High Court tea, an agricultural produce, retained its essential characteristics even after the processes undertaken on it by Unilever. The High Court observed:
In so far as the impugned orders are concerned, on a perusal of the orders passed by the AAR the emphasis appears to be more on the issue that the process by which the tea leaves are dried which results in emergence of a manufactured product, and therefore, tea ceases to be an agricultural produce. In our opinion, such reasoning would in fact go contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court as noted above for the reason that the essential characteristic of the tea being an ‘agricultural produce’ would not stand extinguish by mere processing and packing in whatever form. (para 31)
Circular Cannot Go Beyond Statutory Notification
Another issue that the Bombay High Court addressed in its judgment was the interplay and effect of a Circular on the contents of a statutory Notification. The Revenue contended that their stance that tea that underwent the processes of fermentation, etc. was not an agricultural produce was in accordance with a CBIC Circular issued on 15 November 2017. The High Court, however held that a Circular cannot whittle down or scuttle an Exemption Notification. (para 29) What was the basis of High Court’s opinion? As per the High Court the Exemption Notification No. 12 of 2017 was issued in exercise of power under Section 11, CGST, Act, 2017 wherein the Government can grant exemption from tax on satisfaction in public interest and on recommendations of the GST Council. Thus, the clarification issued in Circular dated 15 November 2017 cannot amend a statutory Notification so as to take tea as an agricultural produce from the ambit of exemption. There is a precedent[3] to this effect, but the underlying premise of the High Court’s opinion is interesting in the context of GST. The Circulars issued by CBIC, admittedly in exercise of its administrative powers, often issue clarifications or state its interpretations of various clauses contained in a statutory Notification, i.e., a Notification issued in exercise of powers under a statutory provision. The High Court’s opinion on the scope of such Circulars will be tested in future as well to determine if a Circular is merely ‘interpreting’ a Notification and issuing a ‘clarification’ or does the Circular go beyond what the Notification states. In the impugned case, the Bombay High Court correctly held it to be the latter. However, it will be a tricky exercise and results are likely to be determined by facts of each case, but the High Court has opened doors for an examination of the scope of what a Circular can state in the context of GST.
Conclusion The High Court’s observations in the impugned case are welcome and provide clarity on two crucial issues: the scope of the term agricultural produce and the scope of a Circular in terms of what kind of clarifications and interpretive clarities it can provide. Both these facets are likely to occupy judicial attention in the future as well and the dust is far from settled. However, we have a welcome decision that can become a reference point for future disputes.
[1] Nutan Warehousing Company Pvt Ltd v The Commissioner, Central Tax, Pune – II, 2023: BHC-AS: 37052: DB.
[2] Commissioner of Sales Tax, Lucknow v D.S. Bist and Sons, Nainital (1979) 4 SCC 741.
[3] Sandur Micro. Circuits, Ltd v Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum (2008) 14 SCC 336.