M/S Sri Ven Kateswara Rice Mmr And Flour Mill vs. The Assitant Commissioner

Held

The Court allowed the Writ Petition in terms of a previous order dated November 20, 2020, passed by a Division Bench in W.P.No.45971 of 2018. That previous order had set aside the levy of GST on the value of by-products (broken rice, bran, and husk) treated as part of the consideration for milling paddy. The reasoning for allowing this petition was based on the submission by both sides that the issue was covered by the aforementioned precedent. Therefore, the rectification order, in so far as it related to the levy of GST on by-products, was set aside. No costs were awarded. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, as it relied on a prior binding decision.

Facts

The petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging a rectification order dated January 10, 2019, for the period July 2017 to June 2018, which revised an assessment order dated August 27, 2018. The petitioner contended that the rectification order was passed without generating electronically in DRC-07 or DRC-08, rendering it void and illegal. The petitioner sought to declare that they are not liable for GST on by-products retained by the 2nd Respondent Corporation, or alternatively, that the 2nd Respondent should bear the liability. The respondents included tax authorities and the corporation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rectification order dated January 10, 2019, passed by the 1st Respondent for the period July 2017 to June 2018, revising the assessment order dated August 27, 2018, is void ab initio, illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law for not being generated electronically in DRC-07 or DRC-08, thereby violating principles of natural justice and statutory authority. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the rectification order was procedurally flawed as it was not generated electronically as required by law, making it illegal and void. They also sought a declaration that they are not liable for GST on by-products or that the 2nd Respondent should bear the liability. Revenue/State's arguments: The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes appeared for the respondents. The judgment records that learned counsel on both sides submitted that the issue is squarely covered by a previous order of the High Court.