M/S. Sri Vaishnavi Agro Industries vs. The Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes)

Held

The Court allowed the Writ Petition in terms of the order dated 20.11.2020 passed in W.P.No.45971 of 2018. The operative portion of that prior order stated that the assessment order passed by the 1st respondent, 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 to the petitioner for milling of paddy, was set aside. The reasoning for allowing the present petition was based on the submission by both sides that the issue was squarely covered by the aforementioned order. Therefore, the impugned order of the 1st Respondent, to the extent it levied GST on custom milling charges, was implicitly set aside, mirroring the relief granted in the precedent case. No costs were awarded.

Facts

The petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging an order dated 19.09.2019 passed by the 1st Respondent for the period July 2017 to November 2018 (SGST). The petitioner sought to set aside this order, declaring they are 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 is found payable. The petitioner argued the order was illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, in violation of natural justice, and without jurisdiction. The learned counsel for both sides submitted that the issue was covered by a previous order of this Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 19.09.2019, levying GST on custom milling charges, is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, and in violation of principles of natural justice, as contended by the petitioner? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order passed by the 1st Respondent is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, and in gross violation of the 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. Alternatively, they requested the 2nd Respondent to bear the liability. Revenue's Contention: The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes appeared for respondent Nos.1 and 4. The learned Standing Counsel appeared for respondent Nos.2 and 3. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appeared for respondent No.5. Both sides submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by a previous order of this Court dated 20.11.2020 in W.P.No.45971 of 2018.