Novus Animal Nutrition INDIA PVT. LTD. Through Its Sr. Gl Coordinator Asia Mr. Rohan R Kushtagi vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the extensive arguments advanced by the petitioner, based on both factual and legal aspects, could only be decided by the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Court found that the petitioner's contention regarding the discrepancy between the products mentioned in the show cause notice and the impugned order could not be decided without appreciating facts on the anvil of relevant chapter headings, classifications, and notifications, which falls within the purview of the Appellate Authority. The Court also noted that the petitioner might be attempting to avoid the pre-deposit requirement of 10% of the disputed amount for filing an appeal. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to entertain the petition on merits and dismissed it, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority. The time spent prosecuting the writ petition was to be excluded from the period of limitation for filing the appeal. The Court explicitly stated that it had not reflected upon the merits of the matter.

Facts

The petitioner, Novus Animal Nutrition India Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 27.03.2026 passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Ujjain. This order confirmed a GST demand of Rs. 21,61,05,458/- for the period FY 2019-20 to 2025-26, alleging ineligible exemption due to misclassification of products. The petitioner claims its products, classified under heading 2309 of the Customs Tariff Act, are nutritional supplements exempt from GST. The proceedings were initiated based on information from DGGI regarding Himalaya Wellness Company, whose products were manufactured by the same job worker, HV Lab, as the petitioner's products. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 30.09.2025, allegedly in haste and largely replicating the notice issued to HV Lab, referencing Himalayan products instead of the petitioner's.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging a GST demand order when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act is available? (Question of law) The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without proper consideration of its detailed reply and that the show cause notice was flawed as it referred to Himalayan products, not its own. It relied on various Supreme Court and High Court judgments to contend that the authority erred in passing the order. The petitioner also argued that issues of jurisdiction and factual aspects were not properly addressed. The respondents contended that the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had bypassed the statutory appeal remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act and Rule 108 of the CGST Rules, 2017. They argued that the extensive arguments raised by the petitioner involved appreciation of facts and legal aspects that could only be decided by the Appellate Authority.