M/S. Sri Venkata Rama Modern Rice Mill vs. The Assistant Commissioner
Held
The Court allowed the writ petition, following a previous order dated November 20, 2020, passed by a Division Bench in W.P.No.45971 of 2018. In that prior case, the assessment order was set aside insofar as it related to 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 in the prior judgment, which this Court adopted, was that the levy of GST on these by-products was improper. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned assessment order to that extent. No costs were awarded in the prior case, and similarly, no costs were awarded in the present case. The Court directed the Registry to annex a copy of the order from W.P.No.45971 of 2018.
Facts
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a rectification order dated January 7, 2019, passed by the first respondent. This rectification order revised an assessment order dated August 25, 2018, for the period July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner sought to declare the rectification order illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, and to set it aside. Consequently, the petitioner sought a declaration that they are not liable for GST on by-products retained by the second respondent (Corporation), or alternatively, for the Corporation to 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 January 7, 2019, passed by the first respondent, revising the assessment order dated August 25, 2018, for the period July 2017 to March 2018, is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law, in violation of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and jurisdiction? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the rectification order was illegal and arbitrary, violating principles of natural justice and lacking jurisdiction. They sought to set aside the order and be absolved of GST liability on by-products, or have the Corporation bear it. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue or the first respondent. The Court noted that the issue was squarely covered by a previous order of a Division Bench.
Sections Cited
CGST
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P. No. 24986 of 2020
O R D E R:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar)
This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “….to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in passing the rectification order of the 1st respondent dated 07.01.2019 for the period July, 2017 to March, 2018 revising the assessment order dated 25.08.2018, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law, in gross violation of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and jurisdiction, and set aside the same, and consequently declare that the petitioner is not liable to GST on the by-products retained by the 2nd respondent – Corporation or in the alternative, direct the 2nd respondent – Corporation to bear the liability if it is held to be payable.”
Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record.
It is brought to the notice of this Court that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by an order dated 20.11.2020 passed by a Division Bench of this Co
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.