M/S. Sri Ganesh Srinivasa Traders vs. The Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes)

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. The previous order had 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 was based on the submission by both sides that the issue was covered by the prior judgment. Therefore, the current Writ Petition was also allowed, setting aside the levy of GST on the value of by-products as part of the milling charges. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was to allow the petition and attach a copy of the referred order.

Facts

The petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging an order dated September 24, 2019, passed by the 1st Respondent for the period July 2017 to November 2018. The petitioner sought to set aside this order, declaring that they are not liable to pay 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 that passed the impugned order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated September 24, 2019, passed by the 1st Respondent for the period July 2017 to November 2018, is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, and in violation of principles of natural justice and jurisdiction, concerning the levy of GST on custom milling charges received by the petitioner from the 2nd Respondent Corporation? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order is 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 non-liability for GST on custom milling charges, or alternatively, to have the 2nd Respondent bear the liability. Revenue's contention: The judgment records that learned counsel on both sides submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by a previous order of a Division Bench of the same High Court in W.P.No.45971 of 2018.