S V Modern Boiled And Raw Rice Mill vs. Deputy Commissioner

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of its previous orders in W.P.No. 11819 of 2020 and W.P.No.7407 of 2020. The petitioner was granted liberty to avail the effective and alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act. The Court directed that if such an appeal is filed within ten days, the appellate authority should examine it and pass appropriate orders. As an interim measure, the respondents were restrained from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner for a period of three weeks from the date of the order. The Court did not decide on the merits of the GST levy on the broken rice, bran, and husk, leaving that to be decided by the appellate authority. No costs were ordered.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an Assessment Order dated December 27, 2018, passed by the 2nd respondent for the tax period July 2017 to May 2018. The challenge was to the levy of GST on the value of broken rice, bran, and husk retained by the petitioner as compensation for supplying their own rice to the 4th respondent to make up for a shortfall in paddy milling yield. The petitioner sought to set aside the order or direct the 4th respondent to pay the GST liability. During the hearing, the learned Government Pleader referred to previous orders of the Court in similar matters (W.P.No. 11819 of 2020 and W.P.No.7407 of 2020) which directed petitioners to avail the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, while restraining coercive steps. The petitioner's counsel agreed to dispose of the present writ petition in terms of those orders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the levy of GST on the value of broken rice, bran, and husk retained by the petitioner as compensation for supplying their own rice to the 4th respondent, in addition to milling charges, is contrary to law, facts, jurisdiction, and authority. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Assessment Order was illegal and sought its setting aside or an alternative direction for the 4th respondent to pay the GST liability. The specific grounds of illegality were not elaborated in the provided text beyond the nature of the transaction. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the learned Government Pleader, submitted that similar matters had been disposed of by this Court by directing the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, with a direction not to take coercive steps. The revenue did not argue on the merits of the GST levy itself.