M/S.Miracles Sands & Chemicals vs. The Commissioner Of CGST

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Miracles Sands & Chemicals, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 15.03.2018 passed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise. The petitioner contended that they were engaged in a mechanical process of mixing titanium ore, not a chemical treatment, and that the imported ore retained its original form and properties. They submitted a technical opinion to support this claim. The respondent, represented by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, argued that the classification of the product and the nature of the process involved are essentially questions of fact, and therefore, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy is available.

Held

The Court held that matters of classification are essentially mixed questions of fact and law. It found merit in the respondent's submission that a writ petition would not lie to decide such questions of fact. The Court reiterated the principle that writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are not ordinarily entertained when an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person. The Court cited the Supreme Court judgment in Thansingh Nathmal v. Supt. of Taxes, AIR 1964 SC 1419, emphasizing that High Courts exercise self-imposed restraint and do not act as courts of appeal to correct errors of fact, nor should they permit the bypassing of statutory machinery. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a statutory appeal within three weeks.

Key Issues

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against an order involving classification of goods, which entails determination of questions of fact and mixed questions of fact and law, when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available? (Implicitly framed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and principles of alternative remedy). Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner implicitly argued that the process undertaken was mechanical and did not alter the nature of the imported titanium ore, making the impugned order unsustainable. They relied on a technical opinion to support their claim. Respondent's Argument: The respondent argued that the classification of the product and the determination of the nature of the process and whether the resultant product was the same as the imported one are essentially questions of fact. Therefore, a writ petition is not the appropriate forum, and the petitioner should exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal.