2025 (10) TMI 377 - HC - GST

Writ held not maintainable; appeal under Section 107 CGST Act available; file appeal with pre-deposit by 15 November 2025

HC held the writ petition was not maintainable because the impugned order is appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act and the disputed classification ... Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Classification of supply - composite supply or mixed supply - supply of reagent with equipment - applicable rate of tax - demand in respect of the first category of supplies - HELD THAT:- In the opinion of this Court, this issue would have to be decided by the Appellate Authority, as there would be a factual examination that would be required. In addition, the impugned order itself is an appealable order under Section 107 of the CGST Act. It is noted that the impugned order is dated 7th January, 2025 and the writ petition was stated to have been first filed on 4th April, 2025, but was returned under defects and has been refiled on 24th September, 2025. This in the opinion of this Court would be at best a delay in refiling - The Petitioner is accordingly relegated to avail of the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act and file the appeal by 15th November, 2025 along with the requisite pre-deposit. If the same is filed within the said time, the matter would be heard on merits and shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Petition disposed off. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether supplies of reagents supplied with laboratory equipment constitute a 'composite supply' or a 'mixed supply' within the meaning of Section 2(30)/Section 2(74) (as applicable) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and consequently what rate of GST applies. 2. Whether supplies consisting only of reagents (without equipment) were correctly treated as part of a higher-rated mixed supply demand by the tax authority. 3. Whether the matters raised require factual determination precluding intervention by writ jurisdiction and therefore must be decided by the appellate authority under the CGST Act. 4. Whether delay in refiling the writ petition (after initial return on defects) ought to bar judicial consideration or be excused for the purpose of permitting an appeal. 5. What appellate process and protections (time for filing appeal, pre-deposit requirement, hearing standard) should be ordered in view of the impugned order confirming demand and penalty under Section 74(9) read with Section 122 and interest under Section 50. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Characterisation as Composite Supply vs Mixed Supply; applicable tax rate Legal framework: The distinction between 'composite supply' and 'mixed supply' under the CGST provisions governs application of the rate of tax: a composite supply is taxed at the rate applicable to its principal supply, whereas a mixed supply attracts the highest rate applicable to any of its components. Precedent Treatment: No specific judicial precedents were applied or overruled in the judgment; the Court observed that classification involves factual enquiry. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that the legal question is principally factual - whether the supply of reagents with equipment is predominantly a principal supply (indicative of composite supply) or a bundle of independent supplies (indicative of mixed supply). The impugned order's characterisation by the revenue as mixed supply (leading to application of the highest rate) raises matters requiring detailed factual and evidentiary assessment such as supply practices, relative values, contractual terms and the commercial purpose of the combined supply. Ratio vs. Obiter: The Court's direction that the classification issue requires adjudication by the Appellate Authority is ratio - the Court declines to decide the legal classification on merits and refrains from expressing a definitive interpretive conclusion on composite vs mixed supply. Conclusion: The question whether reagent+equipment supplies constitute composite or mixed supply must be adjudicated by the Appellate Authority after factual examination; the High Court does not decide the tax rate question on the writ. Issue 2 - Treatment of supplies consisting solely of reagents Legal framework: GST rates applicable to reagents depend on their classification under the schedule; supplies purely of reagents are distinct from bundled supplies with equipment. Precedent Treatment: No precedents cited; the Court treated the claim as raising factual and classification issues. Interpretation and reasoning: Petitioner's pleaded case is that a substantial portion of supplies are only reagents and thus could not lawfully be reclassified wholesale as mixed supplies attracting the highest rate; resolving this requires examination of the specific transactions and invoices to determine whether those supplies were in fact independent reagent supplies rather than part of a composite/mixed bundle. Ratio vs. Obiter: The Court's indication that the demand qua pure reagent supplies may be untenable without appellate fact-finding is an operative direction (ratio) insofar as it mandates adjudication by the Appellate Authority rather than High Court interference. Conclusion: The Appellate Authority should examine whether demands relating solely to reagent supplies were justified; the writ court declines to adjudicate these mixed factual-legal determinations. Issue 3 - Appropriateness of writ jurisdiction vs statutory appellate remedy Legal framework: The CGST Act confers an appellate remedy under Section 107; writ jurisdiction is discretionary and ordinarily not invoked where efficacious statutory remedies exist. Precedent Treatment: The Court applied the well-established principle that where a statutory appeal is available and requires factual assessment, writ relief is inappropriate. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that the correctness of classification and quantification of demand entail factual inquiries and are expressly within the competence of the appellate mechanism under the CGST Act. Given that the impugned order is appealable, the Court concluded that the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory appeal to enable a fresh factual and legal determination by the Appellate Authority. Ratio vs. Obiter: The direction to pursue the appellate remedy is ratio; the refusal to entertain the writ on merits is a consequential legal holding. Conclusion: Writ jurisdiction is declined; the petitioner is directed to file the statutory appeal under Section 107 to enable factual adjudication and determination of the legal classification issues. Issue 4 - Delay in refiling and limitation consequences Legal framework: Limitation consequences for appeal/writ filings are determined under relevant procedural rules; courts may condone or direct time-limited relief in appropriate cases. Precedent Treatment: The Court did not cite authority but applied equitable consideration of delay caused by defect-return and re-filing. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted an apparent delay between issuance of the impugned order and the first filing of the writ, and subsequent return on defects followed by re-filing. Treating the delay in refiling as at best a procedural delay, the Court exercised discretion to protect the petitioner from dismissal on limitation grounds provided the appeal is instituted within a specified period and requisite pre-deposit is made. Ratio vs. Obiter: The Court's instruction to permit filing of the appeal by a specified date without being dismissed on limitation grounds is an operative remedy (ratio) tailored to the facts of the filing history. Conclusion: The petitioner is permitted to file the statutory appeal by the date specified by the Court (15th November, 2025 in the order) and the appeal will not be dismissed on limitation grounds if filed within that period. Issue 5 - Pre-deposit requirement, hearing and reasoned decision by the Appellate Authority Legal framework: The CGST appellate scheme requires pre-deposit and provides for personal hearings and reasoned orders by the Appellate Authority. Precedent Treatment: The Court mandated adherence to statutory appellate procedure; no change to pre-deposit obligation was made. Interpretation and reasoning: Balancing the petitioner's need for effective remedy and the statutory scheme, the Court required filing of appeal with requisite pre-deposit, directed that the Appellate Authority grant a personal hearing, and instructed that a reasoned order be passed in accordance with law - signalling full opportunity for factual and legal determination at the appellate stage. Ratio vs. Obiter: The directive to afford personal hearing and to pass a reasoned order is a binding procedural direction (ratio) to the Appellate Authority; no substantive waiver of statutory pre-deposit was granted. Conclusion: Appeal must be filed with the requisite pre-deposit within the time ordered; the Appellate Authority shall provide a personal hearing and adjudicate the classification, interest and penalty claims by a reasoned order.