M/S. Sri Sivasankara Modem Rice Mill vs. The Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes)

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, stating that the issue involved was squarely covered by a Division Bench order dated November 20, 2020, in W.P.No.45971 of 2018. In that prior order, the assessment order impugned therein was set aside concerning the levy of GST on the value of by-products (broken rice, bran, and husk) treated as part of the consideration for milling paddy. Consequently, the present writ petition was allowed in terms of that previous order. The Court directed the registry to annex a copy of the order in W.P.No.45971 of 2018 to the present order. No costs were awarded. Any pending miscellaneous petitions were disposed of as infructuous.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a rectification order dated January 5, 2019, passed by the first respondent. This order revised an assessment order dated August 25, 2018, for the period July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner contended that the rectification order was illegal, arbitrary, and passed without jurisdiction, particularly in the absence of a valid Form DRC-08. The petitioner sought to declare that they are not liable for GST on by-products retained by the second respondent (Corporation) or, alternatively, that the Corporation should bear the liability. The Court was informed that the issue was covered by a previous Division Bench order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rectification order dated 05.01.2019, revising the assessment order dated 25.08.2018 for the period July 2017 to March 2018, is illegal, arbitrary, and passed without jurisdiction, in violation of principles of natural justice and in the absence of a valid Form DRC-08? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the rectification order was illegal and arbitrary, violating principles of natural justice and lacking authority. They specifically highlighted the absence of a valid Form DRC-08 as a procedural defect invalidating the order. They sought to be absolved of GST liability on by-products retained by the second respondent or for the second respondent to bear the liability. Revenue's Arguments: No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue or the first respondent in the provided judgment excerpt. The Court noted that the issue was squarely covered by a previous order.