Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

Lack of Authority by Tax Research Unit: Delhi High Court Quashes Circular on GST Classification of Polypropylene Bags

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling that affects manufacturers and processors in the technical textiles industry, the Delhi High Court today struck down a controversial circular regarding the Goods and Services Tax (GST) classification of polypropylene woven and non-woven bags. The judgment, pronounced by a bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yashwant Varma and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharmesh Sharma, addressed the contentious issue of whether these items should be classified under plastic goods or textiles for GST purposes.

The court observed that the circular, dated December 31, 2018, issued by the Tax Research Unit (TRU) lacked proper statutory backing. “No authority vested in the TRU to issue the clarification impugned before us,” the bench stated, highlighting a crucial aspect of judicial authority under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.

The petition, filed by the Association of Technical Textiles Manufacturers and Processors, challenged the TRU’s circular which classified polypropylene bags under ‘plastics,’ arguing that these materials should be regarded as textiles, significantly affecting their GST rates.

The Court meticulously dissected the legal framework, noting that, “The impugned circular also fails to advert to the Notes placed in Chapter 39, and which in unambiguous terms, exclude textiles from the ambit thereof.” This observation was pivotal in the Court’s decision, emphasizing the necessity for accurate and lawful classification in the GST regime.

While the Court refrained from making a definitive statement on the classification of the materials, citing the need for comprehensive material and consideration of industry-wide ramifications, it left the issue open for competent authority. “Courts should avoid expressing an opinion on questions of classification unless they are directly raised and adequate and cogent material placed on the record,” the judgment read, underlining the court’s cautious approach in matters of significant economic impact.

The decision was met with relief by the petitioners and is expected to have substantial repercussions for the technical textiles industry. The ruling underscores the importance of statutory authority and proper procedure in the issuance of directives under the GST framework, setting a precedent for future classification disputes.

Representatives for both parties, including Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran and Mr. Kunal Kapoor for the petitioners, and a team led by Ms. Shubhra Parashar for the respondents, presented their arguments in a case that has been closely watched by industry experts and tax professionals alike.

The quashing of the circular dated December 31, 2018, marks a significant moment in the interpretation and application of GST law, particularly in the realm of manufacturing and taxation classification.

Date of Decision: 16 November 2023

ASSOCIATION OF TECHNICAL TEXTILES MANUFACTURERS AND PROCESSORS & ANR. VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS    

Similar News