Swastik Polymers vs. The Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax
Facts
The petitioner, a taxable person, is aggrieved by an Order-in-Original dated 04.12.2023 passed by the Assessing Officer and an Order-in-Appeal dated 27.06.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner sought a writ to quash these orders and to classify their finished goods, "Monofilament," under HSN Heading 5402, attracting 12% GST, rather than HSN Heading 5404, attracting 18% GST. The petitioner also sought to uphold a refund of Rs. 10,46,935/- for clearances during April 2019 to October 2020, attributed to an inverted tax structure. The revenue relied on a Circular dated 11.07.2024, which provided a mechanism for filing appeals under Section 112 of the CGST Act against orders passed by an Appellate Authority under Section 107.
Held
The Court held that the Circular dated 11.07.2024, issued under Section 168 of the CGST Act, was statutory and provided a mechanism for filing appeals through a web-portal. This mechanism offered an alternate remedy to the petitioner. Therefore, the Court found that the petitioner had a remedy before the forum provided in the said Circular. The Court dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground of the availability of an alternate remedy, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the appropriate forum. The Court did not decide on the classification of "Monofilament" or the validity of the refund.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy available against the impugned orders, considering the Circular dated 11.07.2024 issued by the Central Government. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the document relied upon by the revenue was merely a Circular and not a Notification, implying it might not provide a binding statutory remedy. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the Circular dated 11.07.2024, issued under Section 168 of the CGST Act, was statutory in nature. It provided a mechanism for filing appeals through a web-portal against orders passed by an Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The revenue further submitted that while the Appellate Body was yet to be established, filing an appeal along with the required pre-deposit of 20% of the disputed tax would lead to a hearing on merits.
Sections Cited
Section 168, Section 112, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2024:UHC:7590-DB SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
2024
WPMB No. 483 of 2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J. Hon’ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.
Mr. Pulak Raj Mullick, learned counsel for petitioner.
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for respondent.
Petitioner is a taxable person, who is aggrieved by the orders passed by Assessing Officer & Appellate Authority dated 04.12.2023 & 27.06.2024 respectively. Reliefs sought in Writ Petition are as follows: “(a) issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari, quashing the O-I-O No. 21/AC/Kashipur/2023-24 dated 04.12.2023 (Annexure No. 3), r/w the Order-in- Appeal no. DDN/CGST/000/APPL/56/2024-25 dated 27.06.2024 (Annexure No. 4); (b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus allowing the Classification of the finished goods "Monofilament", to fall under HSN Heading 5402: Synthetic or Artificial Filament Yarn, attracting GST @ 12% under Entry no. 132B of Notification no. 01/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended; a
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.