M/S. Spk And Co vs. The State Tax Officer / Commercial Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Spk and Co, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order of assessment dated 25.02.2026, passed by the respondent, the State Tax Officer / Commercial Tax Officer, Mudhukulathur Assessment Circle. The impugned order was passed under Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Act. The core of the dispute concerns whether the seigniorage fee paid by the petitioner, amounting to Rs.23,70,555/-, is subject to GST at the rate of 18%. The petitioner also challenged consequential notices of bank attachment and related actions. The procedural history indicates that this is a writ petition filed directly before the High Court.

Held

The Court noted that the issue of whether seigniorage fee is subject to GST is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Udaipur Chambers of Commerce and Industry and others Vs. Union of India and others (SLP (Civil) No.37326 of 2017), where an interim order has also been granted. In light of this, the Court directed that the impugned order of assessment and the consequential demand be kept in abeyance pending the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court's verdict favors the revenue, the petitioner will have the liberty to challenge the impugned order, including by filing a statutory appeal, from the date of receipt of the Supreme Court's judgment. Conversely, if the Supreme Court's judgment is in favor of the assessee, all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned orders shall stand dropped. The Court disposed of the writ petition accordingly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seigniorage fee paid by the petitioner, amounting to Rs.23,70,555/-, is exigible to GST at the rate of 18% under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Act. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner is challenging the assessment order and consequential actions. The specific arguments made by the petitioner are not detailed in the judgment, but the challenge is based on the taxability of seigniorage fees. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, the State Tax Officer, passed the impugned order of assessment. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the respondent, other than their role in issuing the assessment order.