Krishna Dt.Milk Kproducers Coop,Vijayawa vs. State Of Ap
Held
The Court held that the Petitioner is entitled to exemption on the sale of flavored milk ('Milk Break') and its by-products, based on the Circular dated 28.11.2006 and the Government clarification, which rescinded earlier instructions and waived demands raised on the basis of those instructions. The Court also held that the Petitioner is entitled to exemption on the sale of cattle feed, as the case is covered by the Division Bench order in W.P. Nos. 10968 & 10992 of 2002, extending the benefit of G.O.Ms. No. 302 dated 20.03.1992. The assessment on both turnovers was set aside. However, if the Petitioner had collected tax on cattle feed sales, the Revenue was permitted to retain that amount to prevent unjust enrichment. No other issues were expressly left undecided.
Facts
The Petitioner, dealing in cattle feed and milk products, filed Tax Revision Cases challenging the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the Petitioner was not entitled to exemption under G.O.Ms. No. 1091 dated 10.06.2017 for dealing in cattle feed, and that flavored milk sold as 'Milk Break' was a distinct commodity not eligible for exemption under G.O.Ms. No. 501 dated 25.05.1987. The Petitioner sought exemption for both cattle feed and flavored milk. The Court considered a Circular dated 28.11.2006, a Government Memo, and previous High Court judgments concerning similar issues.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to exemption from tax on the sale of cattle feed, as per G.O.Ms. No. 302 dated 20.03.1992? The Petitioner argued that the case is squarely covered by a Division Bench order in W.P. Nos. 10968 & 10992 of 2002, which extended the benefit of the said G.O. The Revenue agreed with this view but sought permission to recover tax on cattle feed sales if collected by the Petitioner, to avoid unjust enrichment. 2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to exemption on the sale of flavored milk ('Milk Break') and its by-products, considering the Circular dated 28.11.2006 and Government clarification regarding milk purchases from unregistered dealers? The Petitioner contended that the Circular and related Government orders exempted such products. The Revenue did not present arguments against this point.
Sections Cited
Section 6-A, Section 22(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
TAX REVISION CASE NO. 190 OF 2002 AND TAX REVISION CASE NO. 209 OF 2002
COMMON ORDER:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar)
1) Heard Sri. M.V.K. Moorthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Smt. D. Nagarajkumari, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the Respondent. 2) The present Tax Revision Cases are filed under Section 22(1) of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 [‘GST Act’], challenging the Order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, in T.A. No. 345 of 1997 & T.A. No. 857 of 1997, wherein, the Tribunal while affirming the Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, held that, (i) as the Appellant is dealing in cattle feed and not exclusively with the milk and milk products, it is not entitled to exemption under G.O.Ms. No. 1091, dated 10.06.2017; and (ii) the flavored milk sold by the Appellant under brand name ‘Milk Break’ is a commodity which is commercially different from
2 fresh milk and pa
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.