Marksmen Aquatic Products LLP vs. The Commissioner Of CGST And Ce (Appeals)

Held

The Court held that the Appellate Authority (the first respondent) should keep the appeal in abeyance. This decision is based on the principle of awaiting the final outcome of the Supreme Court's decision in S.L.P.(C) No. 5573 of 2024, which pertains to the classification of fish meal. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's reliance on previous orders of this Court, particularly in W.P.(MD) No. 17101 of 2024, which directed similar stays in analogous circumstances. The reasoning is to avoid prejudice to the petitioner and to ensure that any decision by the Appellate Authority is in line with the apex court's ruling. The Court did not decide on the merits of the taxability of fish meal itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of whether the appeal should proceed at this juncture. The operative direction is to suspend the appellate proceedings.

Facts

The petitioner, Marksmen Aquatic Products LLP, manufactures and supplies fish meal. The petitioner claims exemption for fish meal supply, referencing Circular No. 80/54/2018-GST dated 31.12.2018, which clarified fish meal attracts 5% GST. This circular was challenged in W.P.(MD) No. 16770 of 2019, where a single judge quashed it, finding fish meal exempt. This order was set aside by a Division Bench in W.A.(MD) Nos. 112 to 116 of 2022. The Supreme Court granted a stay of recovery proceedings in S.L.P.(C) No. 5573 of 2024. Subsequently, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD) No. 14220 of 2024, where this Court directed a stay on recovery and filing of statutory appeals, to be decided subject to the Supreme Court's outcome. The present writ petition challenges a notice dated 24.09.2024 issued by the first respondent (Appellate Authority).

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority should proceed with the hearing of the appeal when the classification of fish meal, and consequently its taxability, is pending before the Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No. 5573 of 2024? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contends that the Appellate Authority has issued a hearing notice despite the pendency of the Supreme Court case concerning the classification of fish meal. Relying on this Court's order in W.P.(MD) No. 17101 of 2024, the petitioner argues that the appellate proceedings should be kept in abeyance until the Supreme Court resolves the issue. Respondents' argument: The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent Department stated they have no objection to the petitioner's request.