Petition challenging GST show cause notice for product classification dismissed for not exhausting alternate remedies first

The Bombay HC dismissed a petition challenging a GST show cause notice regarding product classification. The petitioner classified their product as DDGS under HSN 1104 (Nil GST rate) instead of HSN 2303 (5% GST rate), which authorities alleged was misclassification. The court held that alternate remedies must be exhausted before approaching HC, citing Whirlpool Limited precedent. The case involved neither fundamental rights enforcement, natural justice violations, nor jurisdictional issues that would warrant bypassing alternate remedies. Following Oberoi Constructions Ltd., the court found no grounds to interfere with the show cause notice without proper factual verification through departmental proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Jurisdiction of the Central Government to levy GST on alcoholic liquor for human consumption.
2. Applicability of an Advance Ruling to the Petitioner.
3. Classification and misclassification of products for GST purposes.
4. Exhaustion of alternate remedies before approaching the High Court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Central Government to levy GST on alcoholic liquor for human consumption:

The Petitioner challenged the show cause notice issued by the Directorate General of Goods & Services Tax Intelligence, arguing that the Central Government lacks jurisdiction to levy GST on the supply of alcoholic liquor for human consumption. The Petitioner contended that such taxation is beyond the legislative competence of the Central Government as per Section 9(1) of the CGST Act 2017 and the Constitutional Scheme, which reserves this power for State Authorities. The Court, however, determined that the show cause notice did not prima facie demand GST on the sale of alcoholic liquor for human consumption, thus not falling under the jurisdictional bar claimed by the Petitioner.

2. Applicability of an Advance Ruling to the Petitioner:

The Petitioner argued that an Advance Ruling in favor of United Breweries Limited (UBL) should also apply to them, as they operate under a license agreement with UBL. However, the Court noted that the Advance Ruling was specific to UBL and could not be mechanically applied to the Petitioner. The Court highlighted that the Petitioner was not a party to the original Advance Ruling case, and the agreements between UBL and the Petitioner differed from those considered in the Advance Ruling. Therefore, the Court found no basis to declare the show cause notice as ultra vires based on the Advance Ruling.

3. Classification and misclassification of products for GST purposes:

The show cause notice alleged that the Petitioner misclassified their product under HSN 1104 instead of HSN 2303, resulting in GST evasion. The Petitioner contended that the production overhead charges did not constitute consideration for a taxable supply. The Court emphasized that the classification issue required a detailed factual investigation, which was beyond the scope of the current proceedings. The Court concluded that the show cause notice was not wholly without jurisdiction or ultra vires, as it involved complex factual determinations.

4. Exhaustion of alternate remedies before approaching the High Court:

The Court reiterated the principle that writ jurisdiction should not be used to bypass statutory remedies unless exceptional circumstances exist, such as violation of fundamental rights or proceedings being wholly without jurisdiction. The Court cited precedents emphasizing the necessity of exhausting alternate remedies before seeking judicial intervention. The Court found that the Petitioner had not demonstrated any such exceptional circumstances and that the issues raised involved disputed factual matters requiring adjudication by the appropriate authority. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Petition, directing the Petitioner to respond to the show cause notice within four weeks, allowing the statutory process to proceed.

---