2024 (5) TMI 257 - HC - GST

Classification of the mixed spices - classification accepted under the heading 09109100 of the GST Tariff - HELD THAT - There are substance in the contention of petitioner that the approach of the Additional Commissioner appears to be perverse to say the least. However an opportunity given to respondent no. 5 to take an appropriate view of the matter and place his reply affidavit on record. Let this be done on or before the adjourned date of hearing - the proceedings placed on 15th April 2024 High on Board.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the issue of classification of goods under the GST Tariff, specifically regarding spice mixes and the proper application of the law u/s 73(9) of the Act. The matter pertains to the consistency in classification decisions between the Principal Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner.

Details of the Judgment:
1. The High Court found that the impugned order by the Additional Commissioner did not adhere to the orders previously passed by the Principal Commissioner in the petitioner's case. The Principal Commissioner had classified the goods, which were mixed spices, under heading 09109100 of the GST Tariff. The Court emphasized the importance of following precedents and maintaining uniformity in classification decisions.

2. The Additional Commissioner's decision was deemed as perverse by the High Court as it deviated from the classification accepted by the Principal Commissioner. The dispute revolved around the classification of spice mixes and the proper application of GST. The Court highlighted the discrepancies in the Additional Commissioner's reasoning and gave the respondent an opportunity to present their arguments.

3. The High Court noted the inconsistency between the decisions of the Principal Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner regarding the classification of the goods. The petitioner's counsel argued that the classification of mixed spices had been settled and accepted for a considerable period, urging the Court to uphold the established classification.

4. The Court acknowledged the validity of the petitioner's contention that the Additional Commissioner's approach seemed to be perverse. Despite this observation, the respondent was given a chance to provide further clarification before the next hearing date.

5. The proceedings were scheduled for 15th April 2024, and no coercive action was to be taken against the petitioner until the adjourned date. Both parties were instructed to act based on the court's order.

This judgment emphasizes the significance of consistency in classification decisions under the GST Tariff, citing legal principles such as 'stare decisis' to maintain uniformity and avoid judicial anarchy. The High Court scrutinized the actions of the Additional Commissioner in light of the established classification by the Principal Commissioner, highlighting the need for adherence to precedents in legal matters.