2023:BHC-AS:37052-DB pvr 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12775 OF 2019 Nutan Warehousing Company Pvt. Ltd. .. Petitioner Versus

1. The Commissioner, Central Tax, Pune-II

2. The Commissioner, State Tax.

3. The Union of India

4. The State of Maharashtra

5. The Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling.

6. The Maharashtra Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling. .. Respondents ------------------------

Mr.Shriram Sridharan with Mr.Shanmuga Dev, for the Petitioner.

Mr.Karan Adik with Ms.Maya Majumdar, for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.

Ms.Shruti D. Vyas, ‘B’ Panel Counsel for State/ Respondent Nos.2, 4 & 6.

------------------------

CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI &

JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.

DATED: 11 December, 2023 JUDGMENT (Per: G. S. Kulkarni, J.):-

1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, heard finally.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges an order dated 10 December 2018 passed by the ‘Maharashtra pvr 2 Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling for Goods and Services Tax’ constituted under Section 99 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Act,2017, whereby the petitioners appeal filed under Section 100 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act,2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act (for short ‘CGST Act’ and ‘MGST Act’ respectively), on the issue whether the petitioner would be entitled to an exemption under Notification No. 12 of 2017 dated 28 June, 2013, so as to be exempted from payment of service tax under Sr.No.54(e) of the said notification pertaining to loading, unloading, packing, storage or warehousing of “agricultural produce” namely “tea” has been rejected.

3. The petitioner's case as set out in the petition is as follows:

The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner was inter alia formed to carry out the business of warehousing, cold storage and refrigeration in all its branches, activities and spheres. It provides godown and warehousing facilities to the distributors of agriculture and allied products. The petitioner also has licence for carrying on business of warehousing under the Bombay Warehouses Act, 1959. The petitioner has constructed warehouses at various places, one of the warehouse constructed by the petitioner is at Fursungi, Pune, in respect of which application for advance ruling in pvr 3 question came to be made by the petitioner. It has obtained a registration under the CGST and MGST Act.

4. The petitioner had let out its warehouse to M/s. Unilever India Exports Ltd. (for short ‘Unilever’) on payment of compensation as per the provisions of the Bombay Warehouses Act, 1959.

5. The petitioner has contended that Unilever procured in bulk ‘tea’ of various qualities either from public tea auctions or directly from manufacturers of tea in 50 kg bags and stored them in the petitioner’s warehouse. It is contended that such procured tea leaves normally underwent standard processes prior to its procurement. The processes as described by the petitioner, are as under:-

“Tea leaves are plucked from the tea plants and the green leaves, plucked from the plants are not fit for the human consumption, it cannot be sold in the open market for human consumption. The raw tea leaves are withered by exposure in the shadow of the sun or by heating in trays until pliable. Thereafter the leaves are rolled by hand or machine in order to break the leaf cells and liberate the juices and enzymes. Finally, the leaves are completely dried either by further exposure to the sun, over fires, or in a current of hot air and then the tea leaves are fermented in baskets, glasses and in clothes. Thereafter the leaves were subjected to grading with sieves of various sizes. The said leaves are finally roasted with charcoal for obtaining suitable flavour and colour. Thereafter the said tea is packed in the bulk packs.

The processing of the tea makes it marketable by minimal process and they are made