9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 477 - HC - GSTGST liability on 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 has held that 'It is made clear that there shall be no recovery of GST on royalty until the Nine Judge Constitution Bench takes a decision.' This petition is liable to be disposed of on the same terms insofar as it relates to either the issue of seigniorage fee or mining lease - the petitioner is permitted to submit his reply to the intimation within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.
Issues involved: Challenge to GST liability on seigniorage fee and mining lease amounts paid to the Government.
The petitioner challenged the intimation communicating the GST liability on seigniorage fee and mining lease amounts paid to the Government. The petitioner relied on Notification No.13/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) and interim orders by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.37326 of 2017, which granted an interim stay on royalty and mining lease. The Division Bench Judgment in A.Venkatachalam v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Palladam, was also cited by the petitioner. The Division Bench of the High Court issued directions for cases challenging show cause notices related to GST on royalty. The petitioners were directed to submit objections within four weeks, and the authority concerned was instructed to proceed with adjudication after affording a hearing. The orders of adjudication were to be kept in abeyance until the Nine Judge Constitution Bench decides on the nature of royalty. No recovery of GST on royalty was allowed until the Nine Judge Constitution Bench decision. The petitioners were given the option to redress grievances before the appropriate forum after the decision of the Nine Judge Constitution Bench. Based on the Division Bench judgment, the petition was disposed of, allowing the petitioner to submit a reply to the intimation within four weeks. The petition was disposed of with no costs, and the related Writ Miscellaneous Petition was closed.
|
