Entire Turnover Considered Without Justification: High Court Declines Interference Due to Alternate Remedy

Case Title: Manpasand Beverages Limited & Anr. vs. Joint Commissioner & Anr.
Court Name: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad
Petition No.: R/Special Civil Application No. 6038 of 2025
Category of Dispute: Classification – Rate of GST
Date of Judgment: 08/05/2025
Relevant Sections: Section 107 of CGST Act, Article 227 of Constitution of India
CGST Rules Referred: Not specifically mentioned in judgment

Facts of the Case

(Paras 3.1 to 3.4)

1. The petitioner, Manpasand Beverages Ltd., is engaged in manufacturing and supplying fruit-based beverages under Chapter Heading 2202.

2. During 01.07.2017 to 31.01.2021, their total turnover was ₹693.92 crores, out of which ₹115.60 crores pertained to five specific beverages identified in the show cause notice.

3. The five products in dispute were classified as carbonated beverages for having fruit content under 5% as per FSSAI norms.

4. Despite the SCN targeting only these five products, the final Order-in-Original considered the entire turnover of ₹693.92 crores for tax liability computation.

Question(s) in Consideration

(Paras 2, 6)

1. Whether the adjudication order was arbitrary and without jurisdiction for applying higher GST rates on entire turnover instead of only the five products under investigation?

2. Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite availability of an alternate statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act?

Observations of the Court

(Paras 5, 6, 7)

1. The adjudicating authority held that petitioner self-declared entire supply value under HSN 2202 in GSTR-1 returns, which lacked reconciliation with bifurcated product-wise data submitted later (Para 12.2).

2. The Court noted that this raised a factual dispute requiring verification of GSTR-1 data versus product-wise bifurcation which could not be resolved under Article 227 (Para 6).

3. The Hon’ble Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax vs. Commercial Steel Ltd. (2021) to hold that availability of alternate remedy under Section 107 bars writ jurisdiction in absence of breach of natural justice or excess jurisdiction (Paras 6–7).

Judgment of the Court

(Para 7)
The High Court dismissed the writ petition without examining merits, directing the petitioner to pursue alternate remedy before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act.

Between Fine Lines

• The petitioner challenged a GST demand based on total turnover rather than specific products under scrutiny.

• Court declined intervention since factual disputes like reconciliation of GSTR-1 vs. product bifurcation cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction.

• Reliance on Supreme Court’s Commercial Steel ruling justified dismissal.

• The Court did not comment on legality or tax rate applicability.

• Remedy lies in appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), not High Court under writ.

Summary of Referred Cases

Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”