2017 (10) TMI 881 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – 2017 (6) G. S. T. L. 262 (Mad.) , [2017] 1 GSTL 7 (Mad) – Jurisdiction under GST – determination of rate of IGST on import of goods – Maintainability of petition – alternative remedy of appeal – case of petitioner is that the respondent is neither a proper officer nor an adjudicating authority as defined and contemplated under the CGST Act or the IGST Act – Held that: – a Writ Court cannot make a fact finding exercise to ascertain, which would be an appropriate entry under which the goods are to be classified.
–
It appears that the petitioner did not dispute the classification as under entry 84329010, but submitted that the correct rate of IGST should be at 12%. The respondent has taken a decision by classifying the goods by fixing the rate of tax at 18% and in support of such conclusion has given certain reasons. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, I do not propose to venture into as what would be the appropriate classification of t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ordered re-assessment of the bill of entry No.2544081, dated 21.07.2017. As against the impugned order, the petitioner has an alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai, under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner has not availed such remedy and is before this Court challenging the impugned order. 3. Thus, the first hurdle, the petitioner has to across is to convince this Court that despite the existence of an alternate remedy, the petitioner is entitled to challenge the impugned order by way of this Writ Petition. 4. The first contention raised by the petitioner is that the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as adjudication under the provision of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, (CGST Act) read with Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, (IGST Act), is to be done by a proper officer in terms of Section 2(91) of the CGST Act, or an adjudicating authority as defined under Section 2(4)
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
f the goods, which was elaborately reiterated by Dr.Krishnanadh. 5. In my considered view, a Writ Court cannot make a fact finding exercise to ascertain, which would be an appropriate entry under which the goods are to be classified. Infact, under the normal course in respect of classification disputes, the High Court cannot entertain an appeal against an order passed by the CESTAT as appeal lies to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of classification issues or matters concerning rate of tax. 6. The impugned order is on request made by the petitioner to furnish a speaking order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. A cursory reading of the impugned order would clearly show that the petitioner submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the respondent in appearing before the respondent and requesting for an order with reasons. In such circumstances, it has to be seen as to whether the plea of lack of jurisdiction now raised by the petitioner is sustainable. The respondent
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =