Disputes regarding the classification of goods and the validity of invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 74 of the GST Act are matters to be adjudicated by the appropriate statutory Appellate Authority.

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in and connected with the impugned order of the 2nd respondent made in Order-in-Original No. 21/2025 AC dated 22.09.2025 emanating from File C. No.GEXCOM/SCN/GST/1842/2025 confirming demands and penalty under Section 74 of GST, 2017, quash the same as the same is without jurisdiction and contrary to the scheme of the GST Act, 2017 .

ORDER

Mr. Sai Srujan Tayi, learned Senior Standing Counsel, takes notice for the Respondents.

This Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself with the consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondents.

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the Order-in-Original No.21/2025 (AC) dated 22.09.2025 passed under Section 74 of the respective GST Enactments by the 2nd Respondent, whereby the proposal contained in the Show Cause Notice No.26/2025-GST dated 04.11.2024 has been confirmed against the Petitioner.

The specific case of the Petitioner is that the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of ‘Hand Operated Grease Pump’. The Petitioner had classified the said product viz., ‘hand operated grease pump’ under the Sub-Heading 8413 11 10 - ‘Hand pumps’ under Sub-Heading 8413 11 - ‘Pumps for dispensing fuel or lubricants, of the type used in filling stations or in garages’ which falls under Heading 8413 - ‘Pumps for liquids, whether or not fitted with a measuring device’ in Chapter 84 to Section XVI of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 .

The petitioner are liable to pay tax for the said products viz., ‘Hand Operated Grease Pump’ under the Sub-Heading 8413 11 10 - ‘Hand Pumps’ under Sub-Heading 8413 11 - ‘Pumps for dispensing fuel or lubricants, of the type used in filling stations or in garages’ at 5% in terms of Notification No.1/2017-Central Tax(Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

However, the respondents have fixed the tax liability at 18% by classifying the product manufactured by the petitioner a ‘Hand Operated Grease Pump’ under Heading 8205 59 10 - ‘Grease guns (excluding compressed air type’ in Chapter 82 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 .

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner entertained a bona fide belief that the product ‘Hand Operated Grease Pump’ merits classification under the Sub-Heading 8413 11 10 - ‘Hand pumps’ under Sub-Heading 8413 11 - ‘Pumps for dispensing fuel or lubricants, of the type used in filling stations or in garages’ at 5% for the purpose of clarification and payment of tax under the relevant notifications, as was applicable earlier under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been engaged in the manufacture of the aforesaid product viz., ‘Hand Operated Grease Pump’ even prior to the implementation of GST and had classified the very same product viz., ‘Hand Operated Grease Pump’ under Heading 8424 20 10 in Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

It is therefore submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is inconceivable how the Respondent could allege and confirm suppression of facts by invoking machinery under Section 74 of the respective GST Enactments, when the petitioner had consistently followed the same classification for the said product viz., ‘Hand Operated Grease Pump’

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said classification which was adopted earlier under the Central Excise regime continued with effect from 01.07.2017 under the respective GST Enactments and therefore, the demand confirmed is liable to be dropped. Even otherwise, it is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would be liable to pay tax only at 12% and not at 18% as demanded by the Respondents.

Co