M/S. Sri Laxmi Venugopal Modern Rice Mill vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)
Held
The Court allowed the writ petition, following a previous order dated 20.11.2020 passed by a Division Bench 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) by treating them as part of the consideration paid for milling paddy. The ratio of the prior judgment, which is now applied here, is that such by-products retained by the miller as compensation should not be treated as part of the consideration for milling services for the purpose of GST levy. The Court directed that a copy of the prior order be annexed to the present order. No costs were awarded.
Facts
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an Assessment Order dated 10.01.2019 and consequential Recovery Proceedings dated 18.11.2020, passed by the 1st respondent for the tax period 2017-2018. The challenge was specifically to the levy of GST on the value of broken rice, bran, and husk retained by the petitioner as compensation for milling paddy for the 3rd respondent. The petitioner sought to set aside these orders or, in the alternative, to direct the 3rd respondent to pay the GST liability. The Court noted that the issue was covered by a previous Division Bench order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the levy of GST on the value of broken rice, bran, and husk, retained by the petitioner as compensation for milling paddy and for making up shortfalls in the yield of own rice supplied to the 3rd respondent, is contrary to law and without jurisdiction. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order and recovery proceedings were illegal, without jurisdiction, and contrary to law. They sought to set aside these orders or have the GST liability paid by the 3rd respondent. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue or the 1st respondent. The Court's decision was based on a prior judgment.
Sections Cited
CGST Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
W.P. No. 23415 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 holding that the impugned Assessment Order vide Ref.No. GSTIN: 37ABAFS5240BIZL, dated 10.01.2019, consequential order of Recovery Proceedings dated 18.11.2020 passed by the 1st respondent for the tax period 2017- 2018, insofar as it relates to the levy of GST on the value of the broken rice, bran and husk obtained in the course of milling of paddy of the 3rd respondent allowed to be retained by the petitioner, in addition to the milling charges, as compensation / exchange for the own rice supplied by the petitioner to the 3rd respondent to make up for the short-fall in the yield, as contrary to law, facts, without jurisdiction and authority and illegal and consequently set aside the same or in the alternative direct the 3rd respondent to pay the GST liability on the petitioner, either directly to the 1st respondent or to the petitioner.”
Heard the learned counsel f
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.