JUDGMENT

1. The writ petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:

"a) Issue a writ of certiorari, or any order or direction in the nature thereof, quashing paragraphs 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4 of the Circular No. 80/54/2018-GST dated 31.12.2018 issued by the Tax Research Unit of the Respondent No.1;

b) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case;

c) Pass such further orders/writs and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require;"

2. The first petitioner, which is an association of technical textiles manufacturers and the second petitioner which is a member of the said association, are principally aggrieved by the Circular dated 31 December 2018 issued by the Tax Research Unit [TRU] constituted under the first respondent, and to the extent that it purports to clarify that polypropylene woven and non-woven bags including those laminated with Biaxially Oriented Polypropylene [BOPP] are liable to be classified as falling under Chapter 39 and more particularly Tariff Heading 3923 forming part of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 [1975 Act]. The dispute essentially related to a question of classification of polypropylene woven and non-woven bags under the Harmonized System of Nomenclature [HSN].

3. The TRU has, on due consideration of the aforesaid issue, clarified that those articles would be classifiable as `plastic bags?under Tariff Heading 3923. The petitioners are aggrieved by the aforesaid Circular, since it contends that polypropylene woven or non-woven bags are made out of textiles and thus cannot be equated with plastics, which form the subject matter of Chapter 39 of the First Schedule to the 1975 Act.

4. It is also their case that polypropylene non-woven fabric is a textile, which is classifiable under Tariff Heading 5603 comprised in Chapter 56 titled as "Wadding, Felt and Nonwovens; Special Yarns; Twine, Cordage, Ropes and Cables and Articles Thereof". Quite apart from the controversy with respect to classification, and which we shall consider in the subsequent parts of this decision, a challenge is also raised to the authority and jurisdiction of the TRU to issue such a clarification in the first place.

5. Appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Lakshmikumaran, learned counsel drew our attention to Section 168 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 [CGST Act], and which reads as follows:

"168. Power to issue instructions or directions.-(1) The Board may, if it considers it necessary or expedient so to do for the purpose of uniformity in the implementation of this Act, issue such orders, instructions or directions to the central tax officers as it may deem fit, and thereupon all such officers and all other persons employed in the implementation of this Act shall observe and follow such orders, instructions or directions.

(2) The Commissioner specified in clause (91) of Section 2, subsection (3) of Section 5, clause (b) of sub-section (9) of Section 25,sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 35, sub-section (1) of Section 37,sub-section (6) of Section 39, Section 44, subsections (4) and (5) of Section 52, sub-section (1) of Section 143,except the second proviso thereof], clause (1) of sub-section(3) of Section 158 and Section 167 shall mean a Commissioner or Joint Secretary posted in the Board and such Commissioner or Joint Secretary shall exercise the powers specified in the said sections with the approval of the Board."

6. It was submitted that as would be evident from the above provision, the power to issue orders, instructions or directions to Central Tax Officers stands vested exclusively in the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs [the Board]. It was in that backdrop that Mr. Lakshmikumaran contended that no power stands conferred upon the TRU. According to learned counsel, even if a clarification pertaining to classification were to be issued under the CGST Act, t