Tea Processing Excludes GST Exemption for Storage

The authority concluded that the tea stored in the warehouse does not qualify as "agricultural produce" under GST laws due to the substantial processing it undergoes, which alters its essential characteristics and is carried out by manufacturers, not cultivators. Consequently, the warehouse services for storing such tea are not exempted under Serial No. 54(e) of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate). The appeal was rejected, affirming the advance ruling authority's decision.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the supply of warehouse services used for packing and storage of tea is exempted under Serial No. 54(e) of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate).
2. Whether tea qualifies as an "agricultural produce" as per the definition provided in the relevant GST notifications.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Exemption of Warehouse Services for Tea Storage
Appellant's Argument:
The appellant, Nutan Warehousing Company Pvt Ltd, argued that their warehouse services for storing tea should be exempted under Serial No. 54(e) of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), which exempts services related to the storage or warehousing of "agricultural produce." They contended that tea qualifies as an agricultural produce because the processes it undergoes do not alter its essential characteristics.

Authority's Findings:
The authority examined whether the tea stored in the appellant's warehouse qualifies as "agricultural produce." They noted that the processes tea undergoes—such as drying, rolling, fermenting, and roasting—change its essential characteristics, making it fit for human consumption and giving it a new name, character, and use. These processes are carried out by manufacturers, not cultivators, which disqualifies the tea from being considered an "agricultural produce" under the GST definition.

Issue 2: Definition of Agricultural Produce
Appellant's Argument:
The appellant argued that tea should be considered an agricultural produce as defined in clause 2(d) of Notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.6.2017. They cited several Supreme Court and High Court decisions to support their claim that tea retains its essential characteristics even after minimal processing.

Authority's Findings:
The authority referred to the definition of "agricultural produce," which requires that any processing done should not alter the essential characteristics of the produce and should be done by the cultivator or producer. They found that the processes tea undergoes—such as drying, fermenting, and roasting—are substantial and alter its essential characteristics, making it a manufactured product rather than an agricultural produce. They also noted that these processes are performed by manufacturers, not cultivators.

Legal Precedents:
The authority distinguished the appellant's cited cases, noting that they involved different contexts, such as income tax and sales tax, and did not directly address whether tea is an agricultural produce under GST laws. They also referenced the Supreme Court decision in Union of India Vs Belgachit Tea Co, which classified the activity of manufacturing tea as a business activity, not an agricultural one.

Circular No. 16/16/2017-GST:
The authority upheld the validity of Circular No. 16/16/2017-GST dated 15.11.2017, which clarified that tea is not an agricultural produce for GST purposes. They emphasized that circulars issued by the CBEC are binding for uniform implementation of the GST Act.

Conclusion:
The authority concluded that the tea stored in the appellant's warehouse does not qualify as "agricultural produce" because the processing it undergoes alters its essential characteristics and is performed by manufacturers, not cultivators. Consequently, the warehouse services for storing such tea are not exempted under Serial No. 54(e) of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate). The appeal was rejected, affirming the advance ruling authority's decision.

---