9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 1366 - HC - GSTValidity of summons intimation or SCN - GST liability under applicable GST laws either in respect of only seigniorage fee or both seigniorage fee and mining lease amounts paid by the respective petitioner to the Government - HELD THAT - The Division Bench Judgment in a batch of cases where the lead case is TVL. A. VENKATACHALAM VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) 2024 (2) TMI 488 - MADRAS HIGH COURT where it was held that Upon receipt of the objections / representations from the writ petitioners the authority concerned shall proceed with the adjudication on merits and in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. However the orders of adjudication shall be kept in abeyance until the Nine Judge Constitution Bench decides the issue as to the nature of royalty. In view of the said judgment these petitions are liable to be disposed of on the same terms insofar as it relates to either the issue of seigniorage fee or mining lease. Consequently in all these cases the respective petitioner is permitted to submit his reply to the intimation summons or show cause notice as the case may be within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Issues involved:
Assailing the summons, intimation, or show cause notice regarding GST liability on seigniorage fee and mining lease amounts paid to the Government under applicable GST laws. Summary: Issue 1: Challenge to GST liability on seigniorage fee and mining lease amounts The petitioners challenged the communication of GST liability on seigniorage fee and mining lease amounts paid to the Government. They relied on Notification No.13/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) and interim orders of the Supreme Court granting a stay on royalty and mining lease issues pending before a nine-judge Constitution Bench. Issue 2: Division Bench Judgment and Directions Counsel referred to a Division Bench Judgment in A.Venkatachalam v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Palladam, where certain directions were issued. The directions included submitting objections within four weeks, adjudication to proceed after objections, no recovery of GST on royalty until the Constitution Bench decision, and keeping contentions open for future proceedings. Issue 3: Disposition of Petitions In light of the Division Bench Judgment, the petitions were disposed of on similar terms regarding the seigniorage fee or mining lease issues. Petitioners were allowed to respond to the notices within four weeks, while assessment proceedings on other issues mentioned in the notices could proceed as per the law. Conclusion: The petitions were disposed of in accordance with the Division Bench Judgment terms, allowing petitioners to respond to the notices within four weeks. Certain petitions were closed, and no costs were awarded in the matter.
|
