L.Russel Raj vs. The Chief Educational Officer

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Shree Renga Polymers, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging Final Order No.42646/2018 dated 25.09.2018 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The core of the dispute revolved around the classification of the product dealt with by the petitioner and whether it amounted to 'manufacture' under the relevant GST provisions. The petitioner argued that if their product did not constitute manufacture, then no GST demand would arise. They contended that this crucial aspect was not considered by the CESTAT. The respondents were the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise and the Deputy Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Karur Division.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. It reasoned that the examination of whether the petitioner's product underwent a manufacturing process and the correctness of the classification dispute were intertwined issues. The Court explicitly stated that it lacked the jurisdiction to decide a classification dispute. Therefore, the writ petition was rejected on the grounds of maintainability. The Court advised the petitioner to exercise their available appellate remedy under the Act. The Registry was directed to return the original impugned order, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed. No costs were awarded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the product dealt with by the petitioner amounts to 'manufacture' under the GST Act, and if not, whether the GST demand is sustainable? (Question of law/mixed fact and law, turning on the definition of 'manufacture' under the GST Act). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that their product does not amount to manufacture, and therefore, the GST demand should not arise. They argued that this specific issue was raised before the CESTAT but was not considered in its final order. The petitioner approached the High Court directly, believing it had the jurisdiction to decide classification disputes. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents relied on the decision of this Court in Competition Team Technology (India) Private Ltd., v. Union of India [2018 (16) G.S.T.L. 465 (Mad.)] to support their submissions. The judgment does not explicitly detail their arguments beyond this reliance.