HC denies ITC of compensation cess on coal used for township electricity supply
- Blog|News|GST & Customs|
- 3 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 14 August, 2025

Case Details: Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. vs. State of Chhattisgarh - [2025] 177 taxmann.com 108 (Chhattisgarh)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.
- Bharat Raichandani, Arjyadeep Roy and K. Rohan, Advs. for the Petitioner.
- Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Adv. for the Respondent.
Fact of the Case
The petitioner, an exporter of aluminium products, filed an application claiming refund of input tax credit (ITC) of compensation cess paid on import of coal on the premise that such ITC was admissible. A provisional refund of 90 percent of the total claim was granted, and a show cause notice was issued proposing rejection of part of the refund claim. In reply, the petitioner contended entitlement to ITC; however, the claim was rejected on the ground that 540 MW electricity generated in its power plant was supplied to township consumption, thereby necessitating reversal of ITC of compensation cess paid on coal attributed to the said plant. The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed, leading to the present writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh.
HC Held
The High Court of Chhattisgarh held that as it was the admitted case of the petitioner that electricity generated in the 540 MW plant was used in the course of furtherance of business, and as evident from Form G, the petitioner would not be entitled to ITC on electrical energy consumed for maintenance of its township. Reliance was placed on the decisions in CCE v. Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Co. Ltd. [2009] 22 STT 46 (SC) and Maruti Suzuki Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi-III [2009] 22 STT 54 (SC). Accordingly, the claim for ITC of compensation cess paid on coal attributed to electricity supplied for township consumption was rejected.
List Of Cases Reviewed
- CCE v. Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Co. Ltd. [2009] 22 STT 46 (SC) and
- Maruti Suzuki Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi-III [2009] 22 STT 54 (SC), (Para 27) followed;
- Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Hyderabad-III v. ITC Ltd. [2013] 32 taxmann.com 334/39 STT 654 (Andhra Pradesh),
- CCE,Nagpur v. Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010] 20 STR 577/29 STT 244 (Bombay)/2010 (260) ELT 369 (Bom.),
- Cinemax India Ltd. v. UOI [2011] 12 taxmann.com 492/32 STT 359 (Gujarat)/2011 (24) STR 3 (Guj.) and
- S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (Appeals) [2007] 158 Taxman 74 288 ITR 1 (SC)/(2007) 1 SCC 781 (Para 28) distinguished
List Of Cases Referred to
- Sembcorp Energy India Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2022] 142 taxmann.com 400/94 GST 672/65 GSTL 263 (Andhra Pradesh) (para 11),
- Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Hyderabad-III v. ITC Ltd. [2013] 32 taxmann.com 334/39 STT 654 (Andhra Pradesh) (para 11),
- CCE, Nagpur v. Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010] 20 STR 577/29 STT 244 (Bombay) (para 11),
- Cinemax India Ltd. v. UOI [2011] 12 taxmann.com 492/32 STT 359 (Gujarat) (para 11),
- S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (Appeals) 2007] 158 Taxman 74 288 ITR 1 (SC) (para 11),
- S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman (1985) 1 SCC 591 (para 11),
- Mysore Rolling Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CCE, Belgaum 1987 taxmann.com 624 (SC)/[1987] 28 ELT 50 (SC (para 11),
- Government of India v. Indian Tobacco Association 2005 taxmann.com 1015 (SC)/[2005] 187 ELT 162 (SC) (para 11),
- Ascent Meditech Ltd. v. UOI [2024] 168 taxmann.com 691/[2025] 93 GSTL 85 (Gujarat) (para 11),
- Tirth Agro Technology (P.) Ltd. v. UOI [2025] 171 taxmann.com 593 (Gujarat) (para 11),
- Maruti Suzuki Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi-III [2009] 22 STT 54 (SC) (para 12),
- CCE v. Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Co. Ltd. [2009] 22 STT 46 (SC) (para 12),
- Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and others v. Dr. Manu 2023 SCC OnLine SC 640 (para 12),
- Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax (1992) 3 SCC 624 (para 20),
- State of Karnataka v. M.K. Agro Tech (P.) Ltd. [2017] 86 taxmann.com 123/64 GST 19/[2018] 52 GSTR 215 (SC) (para 21),
- Jayam & Co. v. Asstt. Commissioner (2016) 15 SCC 125 (para 22) and UOI v. VKC Footsteps India (P.) Ltd. [2021] 130 taxmann.com 193/52 GSTL 513 (SC) (para 41).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.

Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied

CA | CS | CMA