Jotun India Private Limited Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court held that conversion of limited enquiry of classification of goods in respect of Advance Rulings into an appellate enquiry is not permissible to be undertaken in writ jurisdiction.
Facts- The Petitioner manufactures and supplies marine paint used on the hull of the ships. These goods are classified under a Schedule which lists them along with Paints. The Petitioner applied for an advance ruling that marine paints supplied by the Petitioner should be considered as part of the ship/vessel and should be classified accordingly. Both, the Advance Ruling Authority and the Appellate Authority have rejected the interpretation of the Petitioner. They have held that the marine paint supplied by the Petitioner cannot be classified as part of the ship. Hence the Petitioner is before us in this writ petition challenging these orders.
Conclusion- The Petitioner seeks to convert this limited enquiry in respect of Advance Ruling into an appellate enquiry, which is not permissible to be undertaken in writ jurisdiction. The scrutiny in writ jurisdiction of the orders passed by the Authority and the Appellate Authority is minimal. The Petitioner, who sought an advance ruling as to which entry the marine paint should fall, was given full opportunity of hearing. Both the Authorities have dealt with the issue in extenso, have considered the submissions and the law cited and have taken a view in the matter which cannot be considered as suffering from fundamental error or absurd or perverse, assuming that such a test can be applied and, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by both the Authorities.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
The Petitioner manufactures and supplies marine paint used on the hull of the ships. These goods are classified under a Schedule which lists them along with Paints. The Petitioner applied for an advance ruling that marine paints supplied by the Petitioner should be considered as part of the ship/vessel and should be classified accordingly. Both, the Advance Ruling Authority and the Appellate Authority have rejected the interpretation of the Petitioner. They have held that the marine paint supplied by the Petitioner cannot be classified as part of the ship. Hence the Petitioner is before us in this writ petition challenging these orders.
2. The Petitioner is a supplier and manufacturer of paints and powder coatings. One of the major supplies of the Petitioner is marine paints, and the marine paints manufactured by the Petitioner are used on vessels as antifouling paints.
3. Notification No.1/2017, dated 28 June 2017, prescribes applicable rates of CGST. The rules of interpretation of the First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 are applicable for the classification of the GST regime. Relevant entries for the present petition are as follows:
