2024 (6) TMI 467 - HC - GST

GST liability under applicable GST laws in respect of 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 A. Venkatachalam v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Palladam 2024 (2) TMI 488 - MADRAS HIGH COURT 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. Consequently, in this case, 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.

Summary

The petitioner challenged GST liability on seigniorage fee and mining lease amounts paid to the government. The court referred to relevant notifications and interim orders by the Supreme Court. The Division Bench directed petitioners to submit objections within four weeks, and GST recovery on royalty is stayed pending a decision by a Nine Judge Constitution Bench. The petitioner can act upon notifications and circulars after the Nine Judge Constitution Bench decision. The petitioner must reply to the intimation within four weeks. The petition is disposed of with no costs.