{"id":7520,"date":"2022-06-16T07:49:26","date_gmt":"2022-06-16T06:49:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.klickongstworld.com\/blog\/?p=7520"},"modified":"2022-06-16T09:51:40","modified_gmt":"2022-06-16T08:51:40","slug":"goods-attracting-nil-rate-of-cess-shall-be-treated-as-exempted-for-the-purpose-of-adjusted-total-turnover-under-rule-894-of-the-central-gst-rules-2017-calcutta-high-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.klickongstworld.com\/blog\/goods-attracting-nil-rate-of-cess-shall-be-treated-as-exempted-for-the-purpose-of-adjusted-total-turnover-under-rule-894-of-the-central-gst-rules-2017-calcutta-high-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Goods attracting nil rate of cess shall be treated as &#8216;exempted&#8217; for the purpose of adjusted total turnover under Rule 89(4) of the Central GST Rules 2017 &#8211; Calcutta High Court"},"content":{"rendered":"<p align=\"justify\"><strong>Calcutta High Court has held that the goods attracting nil rate of cess shall  be treated as &#8216;exempted&#8217; for the purpose of adjusted total turnover under Rule  89(4) of the Central GST Rules for the purpose of computing refund of credit of  compensation cess to be made under Section 54 (3) of the CGST Act read with  Rule 89 (4) of the CGST Rules as applicable mutatis mutandis to the Cess Act.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><strong>1. Petitioner : <\/strong>The Principle Commissioner,  CGST &amp; CX, Kolkata North Commissionerate &amp; Anr.<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><strong>2. Respondents : <\/strong>Joint Commissioner  (Appeal), Central Tax, Kolkata Appeal &#8211; I &amp; Anr.<br \/>\n  <strong><\/strong><br \/>\n  <strong>3. Appeal Type\/ No. : <\/strong>W.P.A No. 17567 of 2021<\/p>\n<p align=\"center\">With<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><strong>1. Petitioner : <\/strong>Electrosteel Castings  Limited<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><strong>2. Respondents : <\/strong>The Assistant Commissioner,  CGST &amp; CX, Khardah Division Kolkata North Commissionerate &amp; Ors.<br \/>\n  <strong><\/strong><br \/>\n  <strong>3. Appeal Type\/ No. : <\/strong>WPA No. 12676 of 2021<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><strong>4. CORAM : <\/strong>1. Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice Md.  Nizamuddin<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><strong>5. Council For Petitioners : <\/strong>Mr. Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee, Adv.<br \/>\n  (in WPA 17567\/2021)  &amp; <strong> <\/strong>Mr. Tapan Bhanja,  Adv.<br \/>\n  Respondent no.1 (in  WPA 12676\/2021)<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><strong>6. Council For the  Electrosteel<\/strong> : Mr. Abhrotosh Majumdar, Adv. (in both cases) Mr. Rahul Dhanuka, Adv.<br \/>\n  Mr. Harsh  Choudhury, Adv.<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><strong>6A.<\/strong> <strong>For the Union of India : <\/strong>Ms. Priti Jain, Adv.<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><strong>7. Date of pronouncement <\/strong>: 10.06.2022 <\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><strong>8. Facts :<\/strong> M\/s Electrosteel Castings  Limited\/the assessee company is inter alia engaged in the manufacture of  ductile iron spun pipes and fittings thereof. The Assessee inter alia uses coal  as an input for manufacture of its finished goods which is subject to Cess @  Rs.400 per tonne in terms of Sl No. 39 of Notification No. 1\/2017-Compensation Cess  (Rate) dated 28 June, 2017.<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">In the month of September  2018, the Assessee reversed ITC of Cess amounting to Rs.7,01,82,060\/- on  account of domestic supply of finished goods not subject to Cess and Non-GST  turnover during the Relevant Period by treating the same to be exempt supplies  in terms of Section 11 of the Cess Act read with Section 17 (2) and 2 (47) of  the CGST Act. The said reversal of ITC of Cess is not in dispute and is clearly  evident from Table 4B of the GSTR 3B returns filed for the month of September,  2018.<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">Circular No.  45\/19\/2018-GST, dated 30th May, 2018, was issued by CBIC in terms which stood  clarified that a registered person making zero rated supply of final products  (which are not subject to Cess) under bond or LUT may claim refund of  unutilized credit including that of compensation cess paid on coal.  Accordingly, the Assessee filed a claim of refund of ITC of Cess amounting to  Rs. 3,74,54,166\/- in Form RFD-01A in the month of March, 2019 for the month of  September, 2018. The said refund amount was computed in accordance with the  provisions of Section 11 and Section 9 of the Cess Act and read with Section 16  of the IGST Act, Section 54 of the CGST Act and Rule 89 (4) of the CGST Rules.<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">The formula for refund of  ITC in case of zero-rated supply of goods or services without payment of tax  under LUT, as contained in Rule 89 (4) of the CGST Rules categorically provides  for exclusion of value of exempt supplies other than zero rated supplies while  calculating adjusted total turnover. In computing the refund amount, the  Assessee excluded supply of finished goods not subject to Cess and Non-GST  turnover during the relevant period, while arriving at the adjusted total  turnover. Net ITC amount was taken after reversal of Rs. ITC of Cess amounting  to Rs.7,01,82,060\/-.<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">In spite of the aforesaid  factual and legal position, only refund of Rs. 2,03,33,442\/- was sanctioned by  the CGST authority while refund claim of Rs.1,17,20,724\/- was rejected by the  refund sanction order dated 10th July, 2019. The adjudicating authority  computed the refund by adding the supply of finished goods not subject to Cess  in the adjusted total turnover although the formula prescribed under Rule 89  (4) of the CGST Rules categorically provides for exclusion of value of exempt  supplies, in spite of the fact, that the Assessee had reversed ITC amounting to  Rs.7,01,82,060\/- on such supplies by treating the same as exempt supplies.<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">The Assessee preferred an  appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 (1) of the CGST Act  challenging the order in question passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The  Appellate Authority by its order dated 5th February, 2021, allowed the  aforesaid appeal of the assessee company and consequently, allowed refund of  Rs. 1,71,20,724\/-. On the basis of the aforesaid order of the Appellate  authority, the Assessee filed application for refund of cess in terms of  Circular No. 111\/30\/2019-GST dated October 03, 2019 which according to the  petitioner has not been considered by the CGST authority concerned till date in  spite of its repeated request.<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">CGST authorities have filed  the instant Writ Petition being WPA No. 17567 of 2021 challenging the aforesaid  impugned order of the Appellate authority dated 17th February, 2021 which is  further appealable before the Appellate Tribunal by making prayer for quashing  of the aforesaid impugned order mainly on the ground that the same is perverse  since the Appellate authority in the impugned order has not considered the  definition of &#8216;non-taxable supply&#8217; as defined in the CGST Act, 2017 and further  contending that the sanctioning authority has rightly included the domestic  supply in Adjusted Total Turnover and has rightly rejected a part of the refund  claim of the assessee company and that the impugned order of the Appellate  authority on the basis of which assessee company has claimed the aforesaid  refund is not sustainable.<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><strong>Main issue in the instant  case which arises for consideration is whether for the purpose of computing  refund of credit of compensation cess to be made under Section 54 (3) of the  CGST Act read with Rule 89 (4) of the CGST Rules as applicable mutatis mutandis  to the Cess Act, the domestic turnover of final products which are not taxable  under the Cess Act, could be excluded to arrive at the adjusted total turnover under Rule 89(4) of the CGST Rules having regard to the definition of &#8216;Adjusted  Total Turnover&#8217; contained in Clause (E) of the said Rule.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><strong>9. Nature of Issue : <\/strong><strong>Definition of &#8216;Adjusted  Total Turnover&#8217; under Rule 89(4) of the CGST Rules, Refund of ITC credit of  compensation cess in case of zero-rated supply of goods or services without  payment of tax under LUT<\/strong><strong><u> <\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><strong>10. Industry : Not  industry specific<\/strong> <\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><strong>11. Held :<\/strong> On perusal of scheme of the  Cess Act which is relevant for adjudication of this case, it appears that the  cess is an impost to counterbalance the loss of revenue of the States on  account of subsumption of various taxes commencement of the GST regime. Hence,  cess is a levy which partakes the character of all the levies, which now are subsumed  in GST.<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">Cess is akin to the  components of GST, which is a constitutionally approved amalgam of State taxes,  which existed prior to the commencement of the GST regime. The goods and  services Tax Compensation Cess Rules, 2017 were also framed and made effective  from 1st July, 2017 wherein the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 were  adapted. Having regard to the conscious use of the expression &#8220;mutatis mutandis&#8221; in Section 11 of the Cess Act all the provisions of CGST and IGST  Acts would be squarely applicable to the levy, collection and refund of the  Cess Act. The words tax and cess for the purpose of the Act would have to be  used interchangeably.<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><strong>Domestic supply of finished  goods which are not liable to Compensation Cess are to be reckoned as exempted  supplies for the purpose of calculation of refund in terms of Rule 89 (4) of  the CGST Rules.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">Section 2 (47) of the CGST  Act defines &#8220;exempt supply&#8221; as supply of any goods or services or both which  attracts nil rate of tax or which may be wholly exempt from tax under Section  11, or under Section 6 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and  includes non-taxable supply. Thus, finished goods supplied by the Assessee  domestically which attract nil rate of Cess in term of Sl. No. 56 of the said  Notification should be construed as exempt supplies and is therefore required  to be excluded from adjusted total turnover for the purpose of computation of  refund of ITC of Cess in terms of Rule 89 (4) of the CGST Rules.<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">The term &#8220;mutatis mutandis&#8221; has been discussed by the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in several cases as under:<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">a) Rajasthan State  Industrial Development and Investment Corporation and Another Vs. Diamond &amp;  Gem Development Corporation Ltd. &amp; Another [(2013) 5 SCC 470] wherein it  has been held at Para 18 that the phrase mutatis mutandis implies that  provision contained in other part of the statute or other statute would have  application as it is with certain changes in points of details.<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">b) Paresh Chandra  Chatterjee Vs. State of Assam &amp; Ors. [AIR 1962 SC 167] wherein it has been  observed that the expression mutatis mutandis means &#8216;with due alteration of  details&#8217;.<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">Applying the ratio of the  aforesaid judgments, it would be clear that goods which are subject to nil rate  of cess would be construed as exempt supplies for purposes of the formula  prescribed Rule 89 (4) of the CGST Rules and therefore, deserves to be excluded  from the calculation of adjusted total turnover.<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">The court said that Considering  the facts and circumstances of the case as appears from record and impugned  elaborate order of the Appellate authority, submission of the parties, relevant  provisions of law and the discussion made above I am not inclined to interfere  with the impugned order dated 5th February, 2021, for the reason that in my  considered view Appellate authority while passing the impugned order has  neither committed any procedural irregularity nor any jurisdictional error nor  any violation of principles of natural justice and the impugned order is based  on cogent reasons and is speaking one and so far as findings of fact is  concerned, in exercise of constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of  the Constitution, this Writ Court is not inclined to act as an Appellate  authority and differ with the same and substitute the said findings of the  Appellate authority.<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">The court also said that action  of withholding of the petitioner\/assessee&#8217;s claim of refund in question by the  respondent CGST authority and not refunding the same to the petitioner in spite  of the order of the Appellate authority dated 5th February, 2021, holding such  claim in favour of the assessee company\/petitioner, is arbitrary and  unjustified and accordingly respondent CGST authorities concerned are directed  to refund the amount as per the aforesaid order of the Appellate authority  dated 5th February, 2021, along with applicable interest till the date of such  payment, within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. <\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><strong>12. In favour of :<\/strong> Petitioner <\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><strong>13. Case Law References : 1. <\/strong>Rajasthan State Industrial  Development and Investment Corporation and Another Vs. Diamond &amp; Gem  Development Corporation Ltd. &amp; Another [(2013) 5 SCC 470<br \/>\n    <strong>2.<\/strong> Paresh Chandra Chatterjee  Vs. State of Assam &amp; Ors. [AIR 1962 SC 167]<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><strong>14. Relevant Act\/ Rules\/ Forms :<\/strong> 1. Rule 89 (4) of the CGST  Rules 2017<\/strong>,<strong> 2.<\/strong> Section 11 of the Cess Act,<strong> 3.<\/strong> Section 2 (47) of the CGST  Act 2017,<strong> 4. Section 54 (3) of the CGST  Act<\/strong> <\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><strong>15.  Database Citation<\/strong> : <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/klickongstworld.com\/uploads\/Referencer\/1655366883.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">HC-GW-410-2022-WB<\/a><\/strong> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>2022\/06\/kolkata.jpg<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":7522,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.klickongstworld.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7520"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.klickongstworld.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.klickongstworld.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.klickongstworld.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.klickongstworld.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7520"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/www.klickongstworld.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7520\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7532,"href":"https:\/\/www.klickongstworld.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7520\/revisions\/7532"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.klickongstworld.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7522"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.klickongstworld.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7520"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.klickongstworld.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7520"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.klickongstworld.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7520"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}