M/S Sri Venkateswara Agro Food Industries vs. The Assistant Commissioner (Sales Taxes)
Held
The Court allowed the Writ Petition, stating that the issue involved was squarely covered by a previous order of a Division Bench of the same High Court dated 20.11.2020 in W.P.No.45971 of 2018. In that prior order, the Court had set aside 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 of paddy. The reasoning in the prior order, which this judgment followed, was that such byproducts should not be considered part of the consideration for milling services. The operative direction was to allow the Writ Petition in terms of the previous order, setting aside the impugned assessment order concerning the levy of GST on byproducts. No costs were awarded.
Facts
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking to set aside orders from the 2nd Respondent (AO.No.5263 dated 30.5.2020) and the 1st Respondent (dated 10.1.2019) for the period July 2017 to June 2018. The petitioner challenged the levy of GST on byproducts retained by the 3rd Respondent Corporation. The petitioner sought a declaration that they are not liable for GST on these byproducts, or alternatively, that the 3rd Respondent should bear the liability. The respondents are the Commercial Taxes Department and the 3rd Respondent Corporation.
Key Issues
1. Whether the levy of GST on byproducts retained by the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law, violating principles of natural justice and jurisdiction, as per the orders of the 1st and 2nd respondents for the period July 2017 to June 2018? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are not liable for GST on the byproducts retained by the 3rd Respondent Corporation. They sought to set aside the impugned orders and declare their non-liability, or alternatively, direct the 3rd Respondent to bear the liability. Revenue's contention: The judgment records that learned counsel on both sides submitted that the issue is squarely covered by a previous order of this Court. No specific arguments for the revenue were detailed in the judgment beyond this submission.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION No.15449 OF 2020
ORDER:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar)
The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “……..to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction, setting aside the orders of the 2nd Respondent in AO.No.5263 dated 30.5.2020 affirming the order of the 1st respondent dated 10.1.2019 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 byproducts 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, and pass….”
Heard Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 and Sri P.Hemachandra, learned St
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.