AAR: CPCB is a Local Authority and Its Statutory Environmental Fees are Exempt from GST.
Issue
Whether the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) qualifies as a “Local Authority” or “Governmental Authority” under GST law, and consequently, whether the statutory fees it collects for issuing consents, licenses, and testing water samples are exempt from GST.
Facts
- The applicant, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), is a statutory body constituted by the Central Government under the Water Act, 1974.
- It performs sovereign and regulatory functions under various environmental laws (Water Act, Air Act, Environment Protection Act).
- It collects fees for granting consents, licenses, registrations, and for analyzing water samples in its labs (some under an arrangement with the Ministry of Jal Shakti).
- The CPCB’s environmental protection and waste management functions align with the functions entrusted to municipalities under Article 243W and the Twelfth Schedule of the Constitution.
- The CPCB sought an advance ruling on its status and the taxability of these fees under Entry 4 of Notification 12/2017-CT (Rate).
Decision (Ruling of the AAR)
The Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) ruled decisively in favour of the applicant (CPCB) on both counts:
- Status: The CPCB, based on its constitution as a statutory body performing sovereign functions that align with municipal duties, qualifies as a “Governmental Authority or Local Authority” for the purposes of GST law.
- Taxability of Fees: The services of issuing licenses, consents, and performing water testing are functions (like sanitation, waste management, and environmental protection) entrusted to a municipality under Article 243W of the Constitution.
Therefore, the AAR held that the CPCB satisfies both conditions required by Entry 4 of Notification 12/2017, and the fees collected for these statutory activities are exempt from GST.
Key Takeaways
- Two-Condition Test for Exemption: For services by a government body to be exempt under Entry 4, they must satisfy two tests:
- The provider must be a “Governmental Authority” or “Local Authority.”
- The activity must be a function entrusted to a municipality under Article 243W of the Constitution.
- CPCB’s Functions are Municipal Functions: The ruling confirms that environmental protection and pollution control are considered municipal functions, as listed in the Twelfth Schedule of the Constitution.
- Statutory Fees vs. Tax: Fees collected by a statutory body (like CPCB) for performing its non-commercial, regulatory, and sovereign duties are not subject to GST if they meet the exemption criteria.
- Broad Exemption: This exemption also applies to services (like water testing) rendered under an arrangement with another ministry (Ministry of Jal Shakti), as they are part of the CPCB’s core statutory mandate.
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, NEW DELHI
Central Pollution Control Board, In re
BHAVAN LAL MEENA and SMT. ASHA CHAUDHARY MALHOTRA, Member
Advance Ruling No. 12/DAAR/2025
Application No. 190/DAAR/2025
Application No. 190/DAAR/2025
AUGUST 25, 2025
Shivanand Chaudhary, CA and Utpal Kapoor, AR for the Applicant.
ORDER
R. Raghunandan Rao, J.- The petitioner is a registered person under the GST regime. The petitioner received a notice, dated 14.08.2025, from the 1st respondent demanding payment of Rs.1,79,50,000/-, on the ground that the petitioner had claimed the aforesaid amount as input tax on goods obtained from respondents 3 to 5 and that the respondents are non-existent. It appears that the 1st respondent had also frozen the input tax credit ledger of the petitioner, pending recovery of the aforesaid amounts. The petitioner, upon receipt of this notice, is said to have made a representation to the 1st respondent to set out the facts and details, on the basis of which notice had been issued. However, the 1st respondent had declined to give any such information on the ground that such information is confidential and has been obtained from the Tax Authorities of other States.
2. Aggrieved by the said notice, dated 14.08.2025; freezing of the input tax credit ledger of the petitioner; and the refusal of the 1st respondent to furnish the material to the petitioner, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
3. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, submits that the 1st respondent had been supplied with certain additional information by the Tax Authorities of other States, and such information cannot be divulged inasmuch as this information was obtained under a special drive and the source of information and the contents of the said information cannot be given out.
4. The stand of the respondents cannot be accepted by this Court, on the simple ground that a person who is adversely affected by any order or proceedings of the Authority, is entitled to agitate against such an order and for that purpose, the affected person is entitled to be served with all the material which is used against him. In the absence of such service of material and opportunity of rebutting the contentions of the authorities, there would be a clear violation of principles of natural justice.
5. In the circumstances, it would only be appropriate that the petitioner is furnished with the material on the basis of which the sum of Rs.1,79,50,000/-, is sought to be recovered from him.
6. As far as the challenge to the notice, dated 14.08.2025 is concerned, this Court does not deem it appropriate to interfere with the said notice as the said notice is only a show-cause notice and the petitioner would be given an opportunity of rebutting the allegations in the show-cause notice.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also contend that the business of the petitioner had come to a standstill and the petitioner is unable to comply with all the statutory requirements of filing returns, etc. and that violation of such requirements entail adverse consequences on the petitioner, including levy of penalty, interest and late fee.
8. Though the said contention merits consideration, the fact remains that severe allegations are being made in relation to the activities of respondents 3 to 5, on the basis of which the petitioner is said to be mulcted for recovery of large sum of money. In such circumstances, it would only be appropriate to direct an early closure of the entire issue, for the aforesaid reasons.
9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, with the following directions:
| 1) | The 1st respondent shall furnish the material on the basis of which the sum of Rs.1,79,50,000/- is sought to be recovered from the petitioner. |
| 2) | This information shall be furnished to the petitioner, within a period of one (01) week from today. |
| 3) | Upon receipt of such information, the petitioner shall have an opportunity of one (01) week to file his response to the show-cause notice, dated 14.08.2025. |
| 4) | The 1st respondent shall thereupon give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass orders after considering the objections raised by the petitioner and the material placed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent. |
| 5) | This entire exercise is to be completed within a period of three (03) weeks from today. Failure to complete the said process would automatically result in the attachment of the credit ledger of the petitioner being raised and the petitioner would be entitled to utilize the credit available in the credit ledger. |
| 6) | It is further made clear that the material furnished to the petitioner shall be kept confidential and the petitioner shall not divulge or disclose any of the said material to any other person. |
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.