M/S Vasavi Raw And Boiled Rice Mill vs. The Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes)
Held
The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned assessment order dated 18.02.2019. The decision was based on a previous order dated 20.11.2020 passed by a Division Bench of the same High Court in W.P.No.45971 of 2018. In that prior case, the assessment order was set aside insofar as it related to the levy of GST on the value of by-products (broken rice, bran, and husk) treated as part of the consideration for milling paddy. The reasoning was that the issue in the present writ petition was squarely covered by the aforementioned Division Bench order. Consequently, the present writ petition was allowed in terms of the prior order, with no order as to costs. The Court directed the Registry to annex a copy of the order dated 20.11.2020 to the present order. Any pending miscellaneous petitions were disposed of as infructuous.
Facts
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 18.02.2019 passed by the 1st respondent for the period July, 2017 to September, 2018. The petitioner sought to set aside the order, declare that they are not liable to GST on by-products retained by the 2nd respondent-Corporation, or in the alternative, direct the 2nd respondent to bear the liability. The petitioner contended that the order was illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, and passed in violation of natural justice and without jurisdiction. The Court noted that the issue was covered by a previous order of a Division Bench of the same High Court.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 18.02.2019, which levied GST on the value of by-products (broken rice, bran, and husk) treating them as part of the consideration for milling paddy, is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, and in violation of principles of natural justice and jurisdiction, as argued by the petitioner. 2. Whether the petitioner is liable to pay GST on the by-products retained by the 2nd respondent-Corporation, or alternatively, whether the 2nd respondent should bear such liability, as argued by the petitioner. The revenue or State did not record any arguments in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P. No. 24454 of 2020
O R D E R:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar)
This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “….to issue a writ of mandamus setting aside the order of the 1st respondent dated 18.02.2019 for the period July, 2017 to September, 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 by-products retained by the 2nd respondent – Corporation or in the alternative, direct the 2nd respondent – Corporation to bear the liability if it is held to be payable.”
Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record.
It is brought to the notice of this Court that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by an order dated 20.11.2020 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.45971 of 2018 wherein the assessment order impugned therein was set aside. The relev
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.