M/S. Durga Rice Mill vs. The Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes)
Held
The Court allowed the Writ Petition in terms of a previous order dated 20.11.2020 passed by a Division Bench in W.P.No.45971 of 2018. That 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, namely broken rice, bran, and husk, treating them as part of the consideration paid for milling paddy. The reasoning was that the issue in the present writ petition was squarely covered by the said prior judgment. The operative direction was to allow the Writ Petition in terms of the previous order, with no order as to costs. No specific issue was left undecided.
Facts
The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging an order dated 24.09.2019 passed by the 1st Respondent for the period July 2017 to November 2018 (Central GST). 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 requested 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 24.09.2019 passed by the 1st Respondent, levying GST on custom milling charges for the period July 2017 to November 2018, is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, and in violation of principles of natural justice and jurisdiction, as contended by the Petitioner? 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, sought direction for the 2nd Respondent to bear the liability. Revenue's Contention: 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.
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.19311 OF 2019
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 order of the 1st Respondent dated 24.9.2019 for the period July, 2017 to November, 2018 (Central GST), 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 value of custom milling charges received from the 2nd Respondent Corporation, or in the alternative, direct the 2nd 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 and 4, Sri P.Hemachandra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2
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.