Bombay High Court Dismisses Petitions Challenging GST on DAP and MOP Fertilizers Under Reverse Charge. Fertilizer dealers cannot claim exemption for DAP and MOP as they are mineral fertilizers, not chemical fertilizers, under Notification No. 9/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Prosecution
  • 129
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, Ambica Fertilizers, Balaji Agro Agency, Mahesh Agro Agency, and Shree Ambica Fertilizers, are dealers in fertilizers including Di-Ammonium Phosphate (DAP) and Muriate of Potash (MOP). They filed writ petitions challenging the levy of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on the supply of DAP and MOP under the reverse charge mechanism. The petitioners argued that DAP and MOP are 'chemical fertilizers' and are exempt from GST under Notification No. 9/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. The respondents, Union of India and others, contended that DAP and MOP are not 'chemical fertilizers' but 'mineral fertilizers' and are covered under Entry 24 of the notification, which does not grant exemption. The court analyzed the exemption notification and held that exemption notifications must be strictly construed. The court found that DAP and MOP are mineral fertilizers, not chemical fertilizers, based on the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and common parlance. The court also held that the supply of DAP and MOP by the petitioners to farmers is covered under the reverse charge mechanism, and the petitioners are liable to pay GST. The court dismissed all the writ petitions, upholding the levy of GST on DAP and MOP under reverse charge.

Headnote

A) GST - Exemption Notification - Strict Construction - Notification No. 9/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 - The court held that exemption notifications must be strictly construed and the burden is on the assessee to prove that the goods fall within the exemption. DAP and MOP are not 'chemical fertilizers' but 'mineral fertilizers' and are covered under Entry 24 of the notification, which does not grant exemption. (Paras 10-15)

B) GST - Reverse Charge Mechanism - Section 5(3) of IGST Act, 2017 - The court held that the supply of DAP and MOP by the petitioners to farmers is covered under the reverse charge mechanism as per Notification No. 9/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, and the petitioners are liable to pay GST under reverse charge. (Paras 16-20)

C) GST - Classification of Goods - DAP and MOP - The court held that DAP and MOP are mineral fertilizers and not chemical fertilizers, and thus are not exempt from GST. The court relied on the definition of 'chemical fertilizers' in the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and the common parlance understanding. (Paras 21-25)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether Di-Ammonium Phosphate (DAP) and Muriate of Potash (MOP) are covered under the exemption notification for 'chemical fertilizers' under GST, and whether the reverse charge mechanism applies to the supply of these fertilizers by the petitioners.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court dismissed all writ petitions, holding that DAP and MOP are not chemical fertilizers but mineral fertilizers, and are not exempt from GST. The reverse charge mechanism applies, and the petitioners are liable to pay GST.

Law Points

  • Interpretation of exemption notifications
  • Strict construction of exemption clauses
  • Reverse charge mechanism
  • Classification of fertilizers under GST
  • Doctrine of pith and substance
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (BOM) (04) 9

Writ Petition No. 1690 of 2019, Writ Petition No. 6072 of 2019, Writ Petition No. 6111 of 2019, Writ Petition No. 6123 of 2019

2022-04-19

Ambica Fertilizers, Balaji Agro Agency, Mahesh Agro Agency, Shree Ambica Fertilizers

Union of India, Principal Chief Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Nagpur Zone, State of Maharashtra, Commissioner of State Tax

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petitions challenging the levy of GST on DAP and MOP fertilizers under reverse charge mechanism.

Remedy Sought

The petitioners sought quashing of the demand for GST on DAP and MOP under reverse charge, claiming exemption as chemical fertilizers.

Filing Reason

The petitioners were served with notices demanding GST on supply of DAP and MOP under reverse charge, which they contested.

Issues

Whether DAP and MOP are 'chemical fertilizers' exempt from GST under Notification No. 9/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. Whether the reverse charge mechanism applies to the supply of DAP and MOP by the petitioners.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that DAP and MOP are chemical fertilizers and exempt from GST under the notification. Respondents argued that DAP and MOP are mineral fertilizers, not chemical fertilizers, and are covered under Entry 24 of the notification, which does not grant exemption.

Ratio Decidendi

Exemption notifications must be strictly construed. DAP and MOP are mineral fertilizers, not chemical fertilizers, based on the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and common parlance. Therefore, they are not exempt from GST under Notification No. 9/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, and the reverse charge mechanism applies.

Judgment Excerpts

Exemption notifications must be strictly construed and the burden is on the assessee to prove that the goods fall within the exemption. DAP and MOP are not 'chemical fertilizers' but 'mineral fertilizers' and are covered under Entry 24 of the notification, which does not grant exemption.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed writ petitions in the Bombay High Court challenging the levy of GST on DAP and MOP under reverse charge. The court heard the petitions and dismissed them.

Acts & Sections

  • Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: Section 5(3)
  • Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017:
  • Fertilizer Control Order, 1985:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Grants Bail to Nigerian National Accused of Rape and Criminal Intimidation, Subject to Conditions Including Deposit of Passport and Reporting to Police. Court Held That While Prima Facie Case Exists, Stringent Conditions Can M...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court “Mandatory Injunction vs Possession: Supreme Court Clarifies Section 41(h) Specific Relief Act (2026 INSC 61)”“Cloud on Title & Possession: Why Injunction Suit Fails