Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + AAR GST - 2020 (3) TMI AAR This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 1426 - AAR - GSTLevy of compensation cess - Applicability of GST Notification No. 02/2018-Compensation Cess (Rate) dated 26/07/2018 - sale of coal reject by a power plant of Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited (CSPGCL) to the applicant - whether the said Power Plant selling coal reject to them is liable to collect compensation cess even though the applicant don't get ITC on coal, resulting in increase in cost of coal waste? HELD THAT:- The notification prescribes nil compensation cess on coal rejects supplied by a coal washery, arising out of coal on which compensation cess has been paid and no input tax credit thereof has been availed by any person. In the applicant's case, it receives coal rejects from the power plant and not from the coal washery - In a case where there is no ambiguity in the stipulated provisions, there apparently exists no scope of any interpretation whatsoever. In other words, if the provision is unambiguous and if from the provision the legislative intent is clear, there exists no need for any interpretation. It may be mentioned in this connection that the first and foremost, principle of interpretation of a statute in every system of interpretation is the literal rule of interpretation. The other rules of interpretation e.g. the purposive interpretation etc. can only be resorted to when the plain words of a statute are ambiguous or lead to no intelligible results or if read literally would nullify the very object of the statute. Hon'ble Supreme, Court in the case of Swedish Match AB vs. Securities and Exchange Board) India, [2004 (8) TMI 389 - SUPREME COURT] held that Where the words of a statute are absolutely clear' and Unambiguous, recourse cannot be had to the principles of interpretation. A held in Prakash Nath Khanna vs. CIT [2004 (2) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT], the language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of the legislative intent. The legislature is presumed to have made no mistake. The presumption is that it intended to say what it has said. Assuming there is a defect or an omission in the words used by the legislature, the Court cannot correct or make up the deficiency. Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Keshab Chandra Mandal, [1950 (5) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] held that "Hardship or inconvenience cannot after the meaning of the language employed by the Legislature if such meaning is clear on the face of the statute''. The aforementioned judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, confirms that a notification has to be understood from the plain language of the said notification as also that there is no scope of interpretation in such a case - GST Notification No. 02/2018-Compensation Cess (Rate) dated 26/07/2018 extending nil liability of compensation cess on coal rejects supplied by a coal washery, will not be applicable to coal rejects supplied by a power plant and further such power plant supplying coal rejects to the applicant is liable to collect compensation cess.
|