1. Home

SGST High Court Cases

GST – Section 168 of CGST Act, 2017 – Jurisdiction of Tax Research Unit [TRU] to issue instructions or directions in exercise of powers under Section 168 of the Act - Divergent and contrary views by AARs or AAARs on the issue of classification of polypropylene woven and non-woven bags - Challenge to validity of paragraphs 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4 of Circular No. 80/54/2018-GST dated 31.12.2018, issued by the TRU to the extent that it seeks to clarify that polypropylene woven and non-woven bags including those laminated with Biaxially Oriented Polypropylene [BOPP] are liable to be classifiable under Chapter 39 and more particularly Tariff Heading 3923 of First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 – HELD – There is no provision under CGST Act, 2017 in terms of which the TRU could be said to have authority or jurisdiction to render a clarification with respect to classification of goods and articles - even if a clarification pertaining to classification were to be issued under the CGST Act, such power stands conferred upon the Board exclusively and none other - in the absence of a conferral of any power upon the TRU, or it being recognized as being statutorily enabled to issue any clarification or directive under Section 168 of the CGST Act, the impugned circular is liable to be quashed and set aside on this ground alone - divergent or contrary views that may be taken by the respective AARs or AAARs cannot be rendered a quietus by the issuance of subject directive or clarification - the conflict of opinion that may exist would have to be resolved by parties taking appropriate steps as contemplated under the CGST Act, 2017 – Further, the impugned circular, with respect to the classification of non-woven polypropylene bags, has rested its conclusions solely on the basis of the provisions contained in Chapter 39 but fails to examine the issue on the anvil of the distinction which the CTA, 1975 appears to construct when it places plastics under Chapter 39 and textiles and articles thereof separately in Section XI, and more particularly, in Chapters 56 and 63 of CTA, 1975 - The impugned circular also fails to advert to the Notes placed in Chapter 39, and which in unambiguous terms, exclude textiles from the ambit thereof. For these additional reasons, the impugned circular cannot be upheld – Courts should avoid expressing an opinion on questions of classification unless they are directly raised and adequate and cogent material placed on the record - in view of failure of parties to address the question comprehensively, this Court desist from rendering a definitive opinion on the issue of classification bearing in mind the industry wide ramifications that may ensue – the issue of classification is left open for the consideration of the competent authority in appropriate proceedings - The impugned Circular No. 80/54/2018-GST dated 31 December 2018 is quashed – the writ petition is allowed
Download File
show more Judgements  

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Biweekly Tax Recap

By Dr. G. Gokul Kishore

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

Credit Notes ITC Reversal in IMS…
By Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?