2024 (7) TMI 854 - HC - GST

Levy of GST on the royalty payable by the petitioner to the Government for mining of minerals - HELD THAT - Reliance placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Tvl.A.Venkatachalam vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Palladam II Assessment Circle, Palladam 2024 (2) TMI 488 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , wherein the Division Bench of this Court, taking note of the questions framed by Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme 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.' The petitioner is directed to file a reply/objection within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent shall thereafter adjudicate the case on merits, but however, shall keep the implementation of the order in abeyance pending further orders from the Hon'ble Supreme Court as ordered by the Division Bench of this Court. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to GST demand on royalty payable for mining of minerals. Prematurity of the writ petitions.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the notices seeking GST on the royalty paid to the Government for mining minerals. The petitioner argued that the issue is pending before the Supreme Court in another case. The counsel relied on a recent development in the Supreme Court, requesting interim relief until the Supreme Court's decision. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel referred to a Division Bench decision of the High Court, which directed submission of objections within four weeks and stayed the adjudication pending a decision by a Nine Judge Constitution Bench on the nature of royalty.

The respondent contended that the writ petitions were premature as the petitioner had not responded to the impugned notice. The judge considered the arguments from both sides and decided to dispose of the petitions following the directions given by the Division Bench in a previous case. The petitioner was directed to file a reply within four weeks, and the respondent was instructed to adjudicate the case on merits but to keep the implementation of the order in abeyance until further orders from the Supreme Court.

The judge concluded by disposing of the writ petitions with the specified directions, emphasizing that the implementation of the order would be on hold pending the Supreme Court's decision, as directed by the Division Bench. No costs were awarded, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.