GST Demand Case: Procedural Fairness Prevails as Court Scrutinizes Tax Reclassification and Challenges Wilful Suppression Allegations

High Court (HC) analyzed a GST demand case involving product classification and tax rate reclassification. The court found procedural irregularities in the demand notice, particularly the failure to consider the petitioner's replies under Section 75(6). While recognizing the CBIC circulars' basis for reclassification, the court doubted the allegation of wilful suppression. The HC granted interim relief by staying demand recovery and directing respondents to file a counter affidavit, highlighting the need for procedural fairness in tax proceedings.

---

---

Issues Presented and Considered

The core legal questions considered by the Court include:

• Whether the demand for GST arrears under Section 74 of the SGST/CGST Act, 2017, based on reclassification of the petitioner's products from tariff item 2106 90 99 (extruded or expanded products savoury or salted) attracting 12% GST to tariff item 1905 90 30 attracting 18% GST, is valid and sustainable.
• Whether the issuance of the demand notice and confirmation of the demand order invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 74 is justified, particularly in light of the petitioner's claim of no wilful suppression.
• Whether the petitioner's plea that the GST Council's subsequent decisions and CBIC circulars, including the Fitment Committee's recommendation to reduce the GST rate prospectively and examine past period regularisation, negate any case of suppression or evasion, is legally tenable.
• Whether the impugned order complies with the procedural requirements under Section 75(6) of the Act, particularly regarding consideration of the petitioner's detailed replies to the show cause notice.
• Whether the petitioner's challenge to the demand order is maintainable before the High Court, or whether the alternative remedy under Section 107 of the Act should be exhausted first.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

Issue 1: Validity of GST Demand Based on Reclassification and Applicable Rate

The legal framework governing GST classification and rates is primarily derived from the SGST/CGST Act, 2017, and the notifications issued thereunder, including Notification No. 1/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. The classification of goods under the correct tariff item is essential for determining the applicable GST rate. The CBIC Circular dated 13.01.2023 clarified that the petitioner's products fall under tariff item 1905 90 30, attracting GST at 18%, superseding the earlier classification under tariff item 2106 90 99, which had a lower GST rate of 12%.

The Court noted that the initial inspection in 2018 did not raise any demand or dispute regarding the GST rate, as the petitioner was paying GST at 12%. However, subsequent circulars dated 27.07.2023 and 01.08.2023 inserted Serial No. 99B in the Notification, effectively regularising the issue for the past period concerning un-fried or un-cooked snack pellets. Based on these circulars, a fresh inspection was conducted, and a show cause notice under Section 74 was issued proposing a demand of over Rs. 16 crore, alleging wilful suppression by the petitioner in misclassifying the product and paying lower GST.

The Court observed that the CBIC circulars form the basis for reclassification and demand. The petitioner disputes the applicability of the higher rate retrospectively and denies wilful suppression, asserting that the classification and GST rate applied earlier were consistent with the understanding at the time.

Issue 2: Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation and Allegation of Wilful Suppression

Section 74 of the Act permits issuance of a show cause notice beyond the normal limitation period if there is evidence of wilful suppression of facts or fraud. The petitioner contends that there was no wilful suppression, as the GST Council's 54th meeting minutes dated 09.09.2024 indicate that the Fitment Committee recommended reducing the GST rate prospectively and examining the possibility of regularising past periods. This, the petitioner argues, negates any inference of suppression.

The Court considered that the GST Council's recommendation to examine past period regularisation suggests recognition of ambiguity in classification and rate application. Thus, the petitioner's contention that invoking Section 74 on grounds of suppression is not justified gains some support. However, the respondent maintains that the petitioner deliberately misclassified the goods to evade higher GST.

The Court noted the competing arguments: the respondent's reliance on the classification change and the petitioner's reliance on the GST Council's prospective approach and absence of suppression. This issue remains contentious and requires further factual elucidation.

Issue 3: Compliance with Procedural Requirements under Section 75(6) of the Act

Section 75(6) mandates that the adjudicating authority must consider the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice before passing an order. The petitioner submitted that several pleas raised in its reply were not considered, and the impugned order merely replicated the allegations in the show cause notice without independent adjudication.

The Court acknowledged this procedural lapse as a serious concern. The failure to consider detailed replies undermines the fairness and legality of the order. This procedural irregularity casts doubt on the validity of the demand order.

Issue 4: Maintainability of the Petition and Availability of Alternative Remedy under Section 107

The respondent argued that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act and that bypassing this remedy by approaching the High Court is impermissible.

The petitioner countered that the impugned order is heavily influenced by CBIC circulars, which the appellate authority would be bound to follow, rendering the appeal a mere formality and imposing a huge pre-deposit burden.

The Court observed that while alternative remedies exist, the peculiar facts and the procedural irregularities justify interim relief and consideration of the petition. The Court directed the respondents to file a counter affidavit and stayed recovery pending further orders.

Significant Holdings

The Court held that the GST Council's clarifications and CBIC circulars form the foundation for the reclassification and demand but also recognized the petitioner's contention that the Council's recommendations contemplate prospective application and possible regularisation of past periods, thereby weakening the case for wilful suppression under Section 74.

On procedural grounds, the Court emphasized: "Several pleas, raised by the petitioner in reply to the show cause notice, have not at all been considered and the order impugned has been passed by replicating the show cause notice and therefore, the same being contrary to the provisions of Section 75(6) of the Act, cannot be sustained."

The Court, noting the similar interim relief granted by another High Court in analogous circumstances, stayed the recovery of the demand pending further proceedings and directed the respondents to file their counter affidavit within four weeks.

Core principles established include the necessity of:

• Proper classification of goods under GST tariff headings based on authoritative circulars and notifications.
• Strict adherence to procedural fairness, especially the requirement to consider all replies before passing an order under Section 75(6).
• Careful application of extended limitation under Section 74, requiring clear evidence of wilful suppression, which may be negated by subsequent GST Council decisions.
• Respect for alternative statutory remedies, balanced against exceptional circumstances warranting interim judicial intervention.

Final determinations on the issues were reserved for further consideration after the filing of the counter affidavit, with interim relief granted by staying recovery of the disputed demand.

---