Writ Dismissed: Film Workers Exceeding 1981 Wage Ceilings Cannot Claim GST Immunity.

The Dispute: GST vs. The Cine Workers Act

The Conflict: A daily-wage Production Assistant in the Malayalam film industry was slapped with a GST demand under Section 73.

The Petitioner’s Argument: They claimed to be a “Cine Worker” under the Cine Workers and Cinema Theatre Workers Act, 1981.
The Non Obstante Clause: The petitioner cited Section 21 of the 1981 Act, which states that its provisions shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent in any other law. They argued this clause ousted the jurisdiction of the CGST Act.
The Writ Route: Instead of filing a standard appeal, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Article 226, claiming the tax assessment was “without jurisdiction.”

The Judicial Verdict: The “Wage Ceiling” Trap

The High Court dismissed the petition in favour of the Revenue, primarily due to the restrictive definition in Section 2(c) of the 1981 Act.

1. The Statutory Definition of “Cine-worker”

To qualify for protection under the 1981 Act, an individual must not only work in film production but also fall under a specific Remuneration Ceiling:

Monthly Wages: Must not exceed ₹1,600 per month.
Lump-sum Payment: Must not exceed ₹15,000.

2. Factual Discrepancy

The Court noted that the figures in the GST assessment order clearly showed that the petitioner’s earnings were far beyond these limits. Consequently, the petitioner did not meet the legal definition of a “Cine Worker,” making the protections of the 1981 Act (and its non obstante clause) inapplicable.

3. The “Outdated Law” Argument

The petitioner argued that these wage limits were fixed in 1981 and are irrelevant in 2026. However, the Court held that “in order to get the benefit of an Act, one must establish they come within the provision as it now stands.” The Court cannot rewrite the law to adjust for inflation in a writ proceeding.

4. Availability of Alternate Remedy

The Court reiterated that since the case involved disputed questions of fact (actual wages, nature of employment), it could not be adjudicated in a writ jurisdiction. The proper path is a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act.

Strategic Takeaways for Media & Entertainment Professionals in 2026

Employment vs. Service: If you are a Production Assistant, the Department will look at whether you are an “Employee” (Salary) or an “Independent Contractor” (Professional Fees). Employment is outside GST, but independent “services” are taxable if you cross the ₹20 Lakh/₹10 Lakh threshold.
The Status Trap: Relying on labor welfare acts (like the Cine Workers Act) for tax immunity is difficult because those acts often have very low income ceilings designed for “economically weaker” workers.
Avoid Bypass of Appeals: High Courts are increasingly reluctant to entertain Writ Petitions against Section 73/74 orders if there are disputed facts. Always file your GST Appeal (Form GST APL-01) within the 3-month window to avoid your case being dismissed on “Alternate Remedy” grounds.
Wage Inflation Reality: While labor laws may be outdated, they remain the law until amended. For 2026, many workers in the “Audio-Visual” sector are moving toward the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code (2020), which offers broader definitions but different tax implications.

HIGH COURT OF KERALA

Poomuttath Venugopal Vinod

Assistant Commissioner^*

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.

WP (C) NO. 7609 OF 2026

FEBRUARY 27, 2026

Rawther and Sreyas P.M., Advs. for the Petitioner. Smt.Reshmitha R Chandran, Sr. G.P. for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

1. 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. Eventhough, 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.

Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the petitioner to invoke the statutory remedies.