The Tax Publishers 2025 TaxPub(GST) 735 (Gau-HC)

CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017

Section 9

In view of High Courts decision in the case of Bhatter Traders and Another, collection of agriculture produce marketing cess from assessees by the authorities was unconstitutional as well as ultra vires to the provisions CGST Act.

Levy and collection of tax - Illegal collection of agriculture produce marketing cess from assessee - Validity of -

Authorities collected agriculture produce marketing cess from assessee, while bringing goods in the State. The assessee sought refund of the cess amount, which was wrongfully and illegally collected from him, contending that no cess could be levied from him as the cess is levied on the buying and selling of goods in a market area and he neither buys nor sells goods in the market.Held: The issue was squarely covered by the High Courts decision in the case of Bhatter Traders, wherein the Court disposed of the writ petitions holding that the collection of the cess from the assessees by the authorities was unconstitutional as well as ultra vires to the provisions CGST Act. However, the Court was not inclined to issue a writ directing the authority to refund the said amount illegally collected from the assessees.

Relied:Bhatter Traders & Anr. v. State of Assam (2023) 118 GSTR 470 (Gau-HC) : 2023 TaxPub(GST) 1975 (Gau-HC).

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : In favour of assessee.

A.Y. :



IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

KARDAK ETE

Bajrang Bali Roller Flour Mills & Anr. v. State of Assam & Ors.

WP(C)/4657/2018

12 March, 2025

Petitioner by: M L Gope, N Hawelia N Gogoi, N Mech

Respondent by: SC, A S A M B, Mr. N J Gogoi (R-2), S Saikia

ORDER

Heard Ms. N. Hawelia, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N.J. Gogoi, learned standing counsel for the respondent Assam State Agricultural Marketing Board authorities.

2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the levy and collection of cess by the respondent authorities under the provisions of the Assam Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1972, post GST regime. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to refund the cess amount, which has been wrongfully and illegally collected from the petitioner.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities have collected agriculture produce marketing cess from the petitioner, while bringing goods in the State of Assam. The petitioner is a manufacturing unit bringing goods from outside the State for manufacture. The petitioner neither buys nor sells goods in the market. Thereby no cess can be levied from the petitioner as the cess is levied on the buying and selling of goods in a market area.

4. It is submitted at the bar that the coordinate Bench of this Court has decided the similar issue in the case of M/s. Bhatter Traders and Another v. State of Assam, reported in(2023) 118 GSTR 470 : 2023 TaxPub(GST) 1975 (Gau-HC), and order dated 9-2-2024 in the batch of Writ Petitions leading being WP(C) No.4727/2018 (Eastern Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd. v. State of Assam and Others), which squarely covers the present case.

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT