Writ review of GST advance rulings is limited, and identical tobacco products must receive consistent tariff classification.

An advance ruling under the GST law does not exclude constitutional writ review, but interference is confined to jurisdictional error, breach of natural justice, error of law, perversity, or other reviewable illegality; the High Court does not act as an appellate forum. On classification, the product was analysed by reference to its processing and a connected matter involving similar goods, with emphasis on consistency in tax treatment for identically placed persons. The ruling treated the goods as falling under CETH 2401 20 90 rather than CETH 2403 99 10, and the impugned orders were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an advance ruling under the GST law can be challenged before the High Court under its writ jurisdiction and, if so, the extent of judicial review; (ii) whether the appellant's tobacco product is classifiable under CETH 2401 20 90 or CETH 2403 99 10.

Issue (i): Whether an advance ruling under the GST law can be challenged before the High Court under its writ jurisdiction and, if so, the extent of judicial review.

Analysis: The advance ruling scheme under Chapter XVII of the CGST Act provides for a binding ruling on the applicant and the jurisdictional officer, but that statutory binding effect does not oust constitutional writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The scope of interference is limited to jurisdictional error, breach of natural justice, error of law, perversity, or other reviewable illegality, and the High Court does not sit as an appellate forum over the ruling.

Conclusion: The advance ruling was amenable to challenge under writ jurisdiction, but only within the confines of limited judicial review.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant's tobacco product is classifiable under CETH 2401 20 90 or CETH 2403 99 10.

Analysis: The product was examined in the light of the nature of the processing undertaken and the earlier view taken in the connected matter involving similar goods and identical processes. The impugned classification order was found inconsistent with that view, and continuation of the impugned classification would create unequal tax treatment for similarly placed persons dealing with similar products.

Conclusion: The product was held to fall under CETH 2401 20 90, not CETH 2403 99 10, in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the writ appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: An advance ruling may be challenged in writ jurisdiction, but interference is confined to jurisdictional and legal infirmities, and similarly placed goods must receive the same classification where the material facts and processing are identical.

---