2022 (1) TMI 1274 - SCH - Service Tax

Mining lease - levy of service tax - royalty - whether the royalty under the Act of 1957 is a consideration or not and further if that is consideration then what would be the effect pertaining to payment of service tax? - HC 2017 (10) TMI 975 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT held that There is no transfer of immovable property too as the lease granted is only to excavate mineral from the leased area and that activity at the most can be physical transfer of property by its renting as prescribed under Section 65(90a) of the Act of 1994 but not the transfer of title in immovable property - HELD THAT - The petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution should not be entertained in the first instance before this Court. The petitioners have an alternate and efficacious remedy of moving the concerned High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution - Petition dismissed. Demand of Service Tax - royalty payable under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2017 - HC M/S MATESHWARI MINERALS KSHITIJ KUMAR CHOUDHARY S/O SHRI SURYAPAL CHOUDHARY VERSUS UNION OF INDIA NEW DELHI THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX INTELLIGENCE JAIPUR. 2021 (7) TMI 1379 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT dismissed the application - HELD THAT - List the Special Leave Petitions for final disposal on 22 February 2022. Levy of service tax on Royalty - rule 64D of the Mineral Concession Rules - HC 2018 (9) TMI 1522 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT held that at this stage the interests of both the sides can be duly protected if similar relief as granted by the Supreme Court is granted subject to the members of the petitioner associations filing undertakings to the effect that if ultimately they do not succeed in the petitions they shall pay the service tax on the royalty - HELD THAT - List the Special Leave Petitions on 17 January 2022.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entertaining petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution.
2. Availability of alternate remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution.
3. Dismissal of petitions with the option to pursue remedies in accordance with the law.
4. Disposal of pending applications.
5. Listing of Special Leave Petitions for final disposal on specific dates.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court, comprising Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna, addressed multiple issues in the judgment. Firstly, the Court ruled that it was not inclined to entertain the petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution directly, emphasizing that the petitioners had an alternate and efficacious remedy available by approaching the concerned High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, but the petitioners were granted the liberty to pursue their remedies in accordance with the law. Additionally, any pending applications were disposed of as part of the judgment. The Court also listed various Special Leave Petitions for final disposal on specific dates, ensuring a structured approach to addressing those cases. Notably, the judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to the legal procedures and utilizing the appropriate legal mechanisms available to litigants for seeking redressal, ultimately promoting the efficient administration of justice.