M/S Venkata Ramana Rice Mill vs. The Assist Commissioner
Held
The Court allowed the writ petitions. It held that the assessment orders passed by the 1st respondent, which levied GST on the value of by-products (broken rice, bran, and husk) by treating them as part of the consideration for custom milling of paddy, were to be set aside. The Court's decision was based on the reasoning that the issue was covered by its previous order in W.P.No.45971 of 2018. The ratio decidendi is that if the issue is squarely covered by a previous judgment of the High Court, the same principle should be applied. The operative direction was to set aside the assessment orders. However, the Court clarified that the petitioners remain liable to pay tax on the sale of these by-products if they are statutorily taxable. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Facts
The petitioners filed multiple writ petitions challenging assessment orders passed by the 1st respondent (authority not specified but implied to be a GST authority). These orders levied Goods and Services Tax (GST) on the value of broken rice, bran, and husk. These by-products were obtained by the petitioners from the custom milling of paddy. The petitioners argued that the issue was covered by a previous order of the High Court in W.P.No.45971 of 2018, dated 20.11.2020. The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, representing the respondents, did not dispute this fact. The Court heard arguments from counsel for the petitioners and respondents.
Key Issues
1. Whether the assessment orders levying GST on the value of broken rice, bran, and husk obtained from custom milling of paddy are liable to be set aside, considering the prior judgment of this Court in W.P.No.45971 of 2018? Petitioner's contention: The subject matter of these writ petitions is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.45971 of 2018, dated 20.11.2020, and therefore, the same order should be applied. No specific provision of law was named in the argument. Revenue's contention: The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax representing the respondents did not dispute the petitioners' submission that the matter was covered by the aforesaid High Court order.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO AND HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI
WRIT PETITION Nos.239, 307, 308, 331and 362 of 2021
COMMON ORDER: (per UDPR,J)
These batch of writ petitions are filed challenging the assessment orders passed by the 1st respondent levying GST on the value of broken rice, bran and husk obtained by the petitioners on custom milling of the paddy.
Heard learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Srinivasa Rao Kudupudi, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax representing on behalf of respondents 1 and 4, Sri P.Hema Chandra, learned standing counsel representing on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 and learned Assistant Solicitor representing on behalf of 5th respondent.
When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the subject matter in these writ petitions is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.45971 of 2018, dated 20.11.2020 and the same order may be passed in these writ petitions also. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax representing on behalf of respondents has not disputed the said fact.
Following the above said order and for the re
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.