Sri Srinivasa Rice Mill vs. Assistant Commissioner
Held
The Court allowed the writ petition, following a previous order dated 20.11.2020 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) treating them as part of the consideration paid for milling paddy. The reasoning was that the issue was squarely covered by the precedent. The Court directed that a copy of the previous order be annexed to the present order. No costs were awarded. Miscellaneous petitions pending were disposed of as infructuous.
Facts
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 29.05.2020 by the 2nd respondent, which affirmed an order dated 10.01.2019 by the 1st respondent. These orders pertained to the tax period July 2017 to June 2018 and involved a dispute over GST liability on by-products retained by the 3rd respondent-Corporation. The petitioner sought to set aside these orders, declare non-liability for GST on the by-products, or alternatively, direct the 3rd respondent to bear the liability. The High Court was informed that the issue was covered by a previous Division Bench order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the levy of GST on the value of by-products (broken rice, bran, and husk) treated as part of the consideration for milling paddy is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, and in violation of principles of natural justice, as contended by the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, and passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction. They sought to set aside the orders and declare themselves not liable for GST on the by-products, or alternatively, have the 3rd respondent bear the liability. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or the respondents. It notes that the issue was squarely covered by a previous Division Bench order.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned as discussed, but the context implies provisions related to levy of GST on consideration.
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. 21394 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 setting aside the order of the 2nd respondent in AO No.5230, dated 29.05.2020 affirming the order of the 1st respondent dated 10.01.2019 for the period July, 2017 to June, 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 3rd respondent – Corporation or in the alternative, direct the 3rd 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 Court in W.P.No.45971 of 2018 wh
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.