Case Law Details
Poomuttath Venugopal Vinod Vs Assistant Commissioner (Kerala High Court)
In Poomuttath Venugopal Vinod Vs Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner, a daily wage Production Assistant in the Malayalam film industry and a member of FEFKA Production Assistants Union, challenged an assessment order issued under the CGST Act. The petitioner approached the High Court through a writ petition instead of availing the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The primary contention was that he qualified as a “cine worker” under the Cine Workers and Cinema Theatre Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1981, and due to the non obstante clause in Section 21 of that Act, the CGST assessment lacked jurisdiction.
The Court held that the assessment order was appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act, and therefore, the writ petition was not the appropriate remedy. On the issue of jurisdiction, the Court examined the definition of “cine worker” under Section 2(c) of the 1981 Act, which includes a wage ceiling of ₹1,600 per month or ₹15,000 as a lump sum. Based on the figures reflected in the assessment order, the petitioner’s remuneration exceeded this statutory limit. Consequently, the Court found that the petitioner did not qualify as a “cine worker” under the Act.
The petitioner argued that the wage ceiling, fixed in 1981, was outdated and should not be applied. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that since the petitioner sought protection under the same statute, he must satisfy its existing conditions. The Court clarified that any revision of the statutory limits falls within the domain of the legislature, and the Court cannot modify or disregard them.
Regarding other contentions related to the nature of employment, the Court noted that the assessment order had already examined these issues in detail based on relevant agreements. Such matters were found to be factual in nature and not suitable for adjudication under writ jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The petitioner is claiming to be a daily wage Production Assistant in the Malayalam film industry and member of FEFKA Production Assistants Union. The challenge raised against in this writ petition is against Ext.P3 order of assessment passed under the provisions of the CGST Act, by which, the petitioner has been assessed for the transactions carried out by the petitioner in relation to the employment. The challenge raised by the petitioner by way of writ petition, instead of invoking the statutory remedy of appeal, is on the main ground that, the petitioner is a ‘cine worker’, as defined under Cine Workers and Cinema Theatre Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act 1981 and Sec.21 of the Act contains a non obstante clause with regard to the applicability of other laws. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is that, the assessment under the provisions of the CGST Act is without jurisdiction.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I find that, as far as the challenge raised against Ext.P3 assessment order is concerned, the same is appealable under Sec.107 of the CGST Act. The question of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner is based on the contention that the petitioner is a cine worker, also does not appears to be sustainable.
3. This is in view of the fact that, Sec.2(c) of the Cine workers Act defines cine worker, which reads as follows:-
(c)”Cine-Worker” means an individual –
(I) who is employed, directly or through any contractor or other person, in or in connection with the production of a feature film to work as an artiste (including actor, musician or dancer) or to do any work, skilled, unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical, artistic or otherwise; and
(ii) whose remuneration with respect to such employment in or in connection with the production of such feature film does not exceed, where such remuneration is by way of monthly wages, a sum of one thousand six hundred rupees per month, and where such remuneration is by way of a lump sum, a sum of fifteen thousand rupees;
4. As per the above provision, a ceiling of the wages contemplated therein is Rs.1,600/- (Rupees one thousand six hundred) per month or if it is a lump sum payment, Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand). Going by the figures reflected in the assessment order, evidently, the same is beyond the said ceiling limit and therefore, the petitioner cannot be termed as cine worker as defined in the said provision.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that, the said amount is fixed in the year 1981 and therefore, the same cannot be relied upon. Even though, it is a fact that the figures have not been amended by the legislature so far, it is the petitioner himself, who is seeking the protection of being ‘a cine worker’ as defined under the Act 1981. Therefore, in order to get the said benefit of the Act, the petitioner must establish that he comes within the said provision, as it now stands. The contention regarding the ceiling limits for the income, cannot be considered by this Court, as the revision of the same can only be done by the Government by exercising its legislative functions. This Court can neither take up the said responsibility nor ignore the statutory limit, while considering the a challenge raised, based on the said provision.
6. As regards the other contentions, it is discernible from the assessment order that, a detailed discussion, as to the nature of the employment of the petitioner, has been made in the impugned order, after referring to the agreements based on which, the transactions were carried out by the petitioner. On going through the said observations, I find that the same are questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction.
7. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the petitioner to invoke the statutory remedies.
Author Bio
