Tvl Vbs Exports vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer- Ii

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl VBS Exports, represented by its Partner Abishek Eashwaran, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 09.02.2026, issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer-II, Tiruparankundram Assessment Circle (1st respondent), under Section 74 of the GST enactments. The petitioner had not obtained GST registration nor paid GST on seigniorage fee/royalty for quarrying and transporting mines and minerals under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM). The petitioner had also not made contributions to the District Mineral Foundation Trust (DMFT). The impugned order led to subsequent bank attachment proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent. The case was heard at the admission stage with the consent of both parties.

Held

The Court held that the present writ petition is identical in facts to a previous case, W.P.Nos.35883 and 35889 of 2025 (S.Pichandhi, Proprietor of Sri Murugan Ready Mix Concrete and Blue Metal Industries, Vellore Vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer, Vellore Rural Assessment Circle, Vellore), decided on 25.09.2025. In that case, the Court had directed the respondent to keep all proceedings in abeyance and await the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the dispute on the levy of GST on seigniorage fee/royalty for quarrying mines and minerals. The petitioner in that case was also directed to deposit 10% of the disputed tax as security. Following this precedent, the Court decided that the aforesaid order will hold good for the present writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of on the same terms as the previous order, with proceedings to be kept in abeyance pending the Supreme Court's decision. The operative direction is to keep proceedings in abeyance.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 09.02.2026 and subsequent bank attachment proceedings are illegal, warranting quashing under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in light of the pending Supreme Court decision on the levy of GST on seigniorage fee/royalty for quarrying minerals? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the issue of levying GST on seigniorage fee/royalty paid for quarrying and transporting minerals is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, proceedings should be kept in abeyance until the Supreme Court's decision. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state. However, the revenue is the respondent and has been represented by counsel.