2017 (10) TMI 881 - HC - GST

Jurisdiction under GST - determination of rate of IGST on import of goods - Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - case of petitioner is that the respondent is neither a proper officer nor an adjudicating authority as defined and contemplated under the CGST Act or the IGST Act - Held that - a Writ Court cannot make a fact finding exercise to ascertain, which would be an appropriate entry under which the goods are to be classified. It appears that the petitioner did not dispute the classification as under entry 84329010, but submitted that the correct rate of IGST should be at 12%. The respondent has taken a decision by classifying the goods by fixing the rate of tax at 18% and in support of such conclusion has given certain reasons. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, I do not propose to venture into as what would be the appropriate classification of the goods as this exercise being a factual exercise has to be necessarily agitated before the appellate authority. - Writ petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Order-in-Original under Customs Act, 1962 - Denial of claim for notification benefit - Jurisdiction of the respondent - Availability of alternate remedy - Classification of goods - Maintainability of Writ Petition.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an Order-in-Original issued under the Customs Act, 1962, denying the benefit of a notification for goods' description. The respondent ordered re-assessment of the bill of entry, leading to the petitioner's Writ Petition against the order. The primary issue was the petitioner's entitlement to challenge the order despite an alternate remedy of appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).

The petitioner contended that the respondent lacked jurisdiction for adjudication under the CGST Act and IGST Act. The petitioner argued that the respondent was not the proper officer or adjudicating authority as defined under the Acts. The petitioner claimed that the bill was self-assessed and redetermination should follow the procedure under the CGST Act. The petitioner also highlighted the absence of notified appellate authorities under the Acts, leaving them with no alternative but to approach the High Court through the Writ Petition.

The Court emphasized that it cannot engage in fact-finding exercises for goods classification disputes. It noted that appeals on classification matters usually lie with the Supreme Court. The impugned order was issued based on the petitioner's request for a speaking order under the Customs Act. The Court observed that the petitioner voluntarily submitted to the respondent's jurisdiction by seeking reasons for the order. The respondent provided an opportunity for a hearing, during which the petitioner contested the classification but did not dispute the entry. The Court refrained from determining the appropriate classification, stating that such factual issues should be raised before the appellate authority.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition as not maintainable, advising the petitioner to appeal before the appellate authority. The Court directed the exclusion of specific time periods for limitation calculation in case of an appeal. The judgment highlighted that all points, including jurisdictional matters, could be raised before the appellate authority, underscoring the importance of following the statutory appeal process for disputes related to customs classification and tax rates.