9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 881X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - W.P.No.25415 of 2017 & W.M.P.No.26857 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 5-10-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For Petitioner : Dr.S.Krishnanadh For Respondent : Mr.A.P.Srinivas ORDER Heard Dr.S.Krishnanadh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer in terms of Section 2(91) of the CGST Act, or an adjudicating authority as defined under Section 2(4) of the CGST Act. That the respondent is neither a proper officer nor an adjudicating authority as defined and contemplated under the CGST Act or the IGST Act. It is submitted that the bill of entry, dated 21.07.2017, was assessed on self assessment basis under Section 59 of the CGST Act and redetermination of such a bill of entry can be done only in the manner prescribed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, which provides for issuance of notice and notice having not been issued to the petitioner, the entire action initiated by the respondent is without jurisdiction. The CGST Act read with IGST Act provide for filing appeals before the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al hearing on 16.08.2017. The proprietor of the petitioner attended the hearing and contested the classification adopted by the department for the imported goods, which are tiller blades. 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. Needless to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
