Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 1090 - HC - GSTIssues: Challenge to GST liability on seigniorage fee and mining lease amounts paid to the Government under applicable GST laws. Analysis: 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, including SLP(C) No.37326 of 2017, which granted an interim stay on royalty and mining lease issues pending before a nine-judge bench. The Division Bench referred to a judgment in A.Venkatachalam v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Palladam, and issued directions, including submission of objections within four weeks, adjudication to be in abeyance until the nine-judge bench decision, no recovery of GST on royalty until then, and allowing redressal of grievances before appropriate forums. The petitioner was permitted to submit a reply to the intimation within four weeks based on the said judgment, leading to the disposal of the petition. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal arguments, references to relevant notifications and interim orders, the significance of the Division Bench directions, and the final disposition of the petition based on the terms set forth in the judgment.
|