Case Details: Bharat Aluminum Company Ltd. vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2025) 36 Centax 30 (Chhattisgarh)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Ramesh Sinha, CJ. & Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.
- S/Shri Bharat Raichandani & K. Rohan, Advocates, for the Appellant.
- Shri Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee, an aluminium manufacturer operating captive power plants at Korba, generated electricity using imported coal on which Compensation Cess had been paid. The electricity so generated was partly used in the manufacturing process, partly sold to State Electricity Boards, and partly supplied to the employees’ residential township. The assessee claimed refund of ITC of Compensation Cess, which the jurisdictional officer under CGST rejected proportionate to the electricity supplied to the township; the rejection was upheld in appeal, and the assessee’s writ petitions were dismissed. Intra-Court appeals were thereafter filed wherein the assessee contended that ITC was admissible on the entirety of inputs used for power generation and that refund denial on the proportion attributable to the township supply was contrary to Sections 16 and 17 of the CGST Act and Chhattisgarh GST Act. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that ITC, being a statutory concession, is allowable strictly in accordance with the scheme under Sections 16 and 17 of the CGST Act and Chhattisgarh GST Act. The Court observed that electricity supplied to the employees’ township was neither used within the factory for manufacture nor constituted captive consumption integrally linked to production, and therefore could not be regarded as used ‘in the course or furtherance of business’. The Court further held that the supply of electricity to the township was welfare-oriented and external to the manufacturing activity, rendering the proportionate ITC, including Compensation Cess, ineligible. Concluding that the refund claims relating to such ineligible ITC were unsustainable, the Court dismissed the intra-Court appeals.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh — (2025) 33 Centax 209 (Chhattisgarh) — Affirmed [Paras 3, 9, 12, 19, 30]
List of Cases Cited
- Ascent Meditech Ltd. v. Union of India — (2024) 24 Centax 405 (Guj.) = 2025 (93) G.S.T.L. 85 (Guj.) — Referred [Para 28]
- Cinemax India Ltd. v. Union of India — 2011 (24) S.T.R. 3 (Guj.) — Referred [Para 24]
- Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. — 2015 (1) SCC 1 — Referred [Para 15]
- Commissioner v. Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Co. Ltd. — 2009 (240) E.L.T. 661 (S.C.) — Referred [Paras 13, 15, 17, 21, 22, 23]
- Commissioner v. ITC Ltd. — 2013 (32) S.T.R. 288 (A.P.) — Referred [Para 24]
- Commissioner v. Ultratech Cement Ltd. — 2010 (260) E.L.T. 369 (Bom.) — Referred [Para 24]
- Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax — (1992) 3 SCC 624 — Referred [Para 21]
- Jayam & Co. v. Assistant Commissioner — 2018 (19) G.S.T.L. 3 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 21]
- Maruti Suzuki Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2009 (240) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) — Referred [Paras 13, 15, 17, 21, 22, 23]
- Mysore Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector — 1987 (28) E.L.T. 50 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 28]
- Principal Commissioner v. Himadri Speciality Chemical Ltd. — 2022 SCC OnLine Cal 3348 — Referred [Para 15]
- S.A. Builders Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax — (2007) 1 SCC 781 — Referred [Para 24]
- Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v. Dr. Manu — 2023 SCC OnLine SC 640 — Referred [Paras 13, 26]
- State of Karnataka v. M.K. Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd. — 2017 (6) G.S.T.L. 125 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 21]
- Union of India v. VKC Footsteps India Pvt. Ltd. — 2021 (52) G.S.T.L. 513 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 26]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 14/2022-C.T., dated 5-7-2022 [Paras 10, 15, 17, 31]
