Water products GST classification case remanded for fresh consideration with new evidence under heading 2201

The AAAR remanded a GST classification case to the lower authority for re-examination. The dispute concerned whether water products should be classified under heading 2201. The appellant had submitted additional evidence including test reports, consent letters, and process explanations that were not previously considered. The AAAR held that these new documents warranted fresh consideration by the AAR and directed the lower authority to re-examine the matter following principles of natural justice and provide the appellant an opportunity for personal hearing before passing appropriate orders.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of treated water from effluents.
2. Applicability of GST exemption under Heading 2201.
3. Comparison with sewage treatment plants.
4. Consideration of additional documents and test reports.

Summary:

1. Classification of Treated Water from Effluents:
The appellant, an effluent treatment plant, sought an advance ruling on whether the classification of their output as a supply of goods under Heading 2201 is correct. The Advance Ruling Authority (AAR) initially classified the treated water as "Water (other than aerated, mineral, distilled, medicinal, ionic, battery, demineralized and water sold in sealed container)" under Heading 2201, exempting it from GST.

2. Applicability of GST Exemption under Heading 2201:
The appellant argued that the AAR erred in classifying the treated water under Heading 2201, asserting that the treated water, known as RO Permeate, is not fit for human consumption and should not be classified as water under Heading 2201. They contended that the RO Permeate should be classified under CTH 2853 - Other inorganic compounds, or as demineralized water under Heading 2201 if considered as water.

3. Comparison with Sewage Treatment Plants:
The appellant contended that the AAR incorrectly equated their effluent treatment plant with sewage treatment plants, failing to recognize the differences in the characteristics and processing of dyeing effluents compared to sewage. They highlighted that the treated sewage water is allowed for irrigation and discharge into water bodies, whereas RO Permeate is restricted to reuse in dyeing units only.

4. Consideration of Additional Documents and Test Reports:
The appellant submitted additional documents, including a test report by the South India Textile Research Association (SITRA) and a Consent Order from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, which were not available during the initial ruling. These documents classify the RO Permeate as industrial use water, not fit for human consumption, and specify its reuse by dyeing units only.

Conclusion:
The Appellate Authority found that the issue requires re-examination by the AAR, considering the new test report and additional documents submitted by the appellant. The case was remanded to the AAR for fresh examination and order, ensuring the principles of natural justice are followed. The previous ruling by the AAR was set aside.

---