M/S. Sri Lakshmi Ganapathi Venkateswara Modern Rice Mill vs. The Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes)

Held

The Court allowed the Writ Petition in terms of a previous order dated November 20, 2020, passed in W.P.No.45971 of 2018. The operative portion of that prior order set aside the impugned Assessment Order in so far 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 for allowing the present petition is based on the submission by both sides that the issue is covered by the prior judgment. Therefore, the principle applied is that if a similar issue has been decided by a Division Bench of the High Court, subsequent similar writ petitions should follow that precedent. The Court did not make any specific findings on the merits of the petitioner's case beyond relying on the prior judgment.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order dated September 19, 2019, passed by the 1st Respondent for the period July 2017 to November 2018 (State GST). The petitioner sought to set aside this order, declaring them not liable for GST on custom milling charges received from the 2nd Respondent Corporation. Alternatively, they sought a direction for the 2nd Respondent to bear the liability if it was found payable. The petitioner argued that the order was illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, and passed in violation of natural justice and without jurisdiction. The 1st Respondent is the authority who passed the impugned order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated September 19, 2019, passed by the 1st Respondent for the period July 2017 to November 2018 (State GST) is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, and in violation of principles of natural justice and jurisdiction? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned order was illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, and passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and jurisdiction. They sought to set aside the order and declare themselves not liable for GST on custom milling charges. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records that learned counsel on both sides submitted that the issue involved is squarely covered by a previous order of this Court in W.P.No.45971 of 2018. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue beyond this submission.