M/S Muneer Enterprises vs. Sh. Naval Kishore Ram, Joint Secretary, Department Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance & Ors

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Munee Enterprises, filed a writ petition (CWP-2102-2021) challenging an order dated 08.11.2021. This order was issued by a Division Bench in a connected matter, directing that payment of GST for grant of mining lease/royalty be stayed until further orders. Despite this, the petitioner received a show-cause notice dated 08.11.2021 and subsequently an order dated 30.01.2025 from the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (State Tax), Mahendergarh, directing payment of ₹72,47,420/- as penalty for HGST. The respondents filed a short affidavit on 03.09.2025, attaching a letter dated 25.08.2025 from the Excise & Taxation Commissioner, State Tax, Mahendergarh, stating that the show-cause notice and the order dated 30.01.2025 were kept in abeyance until 31.01.2025, referencing the Division Bench's order in CWP-13512-2020.

Held

The Court noted the submissions of both parties. The petitioner highlighted the Division Bench's order staying GST payments and the subsequent issuance of a penalty notice and order. The respondents, in their short affidavit, submitted a letter from the Excise & Taxation Commissioner stating that the show-cause notice and the order dated 30.01.2025 were kept in abeyance until 31.01.2025, in line with the Division Bench's order in CWP-13512-2020. Given these submissions, particularly the respondents' confirmation that the impugned order was held in abeyance, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition could be disposed of at this stage with liberty to revive it if further action is taken by the respondents. The Court accepted this submission. The ratio decidendi is that when an authority acknowledges that an impugned order is kept in abeyance due to a higher court's directive, the current proceedings can be disposed of with liberty to revive, provided the petitioner is not prejudiced by any future action.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 30.01.2025, directing the petitioner to pay a penalty of ₹72,47,420/- as HGST, is in contravention of the Division Bench's order dated 08.11.2021 in CWP-13512-2020, which stayed payment of GST for grant of mining lease/royalty until further orders? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the show-cause notice and the subsequent order imposing a penalty were issued despite the Division Bench's order staying payments related to mining lease/royalty. They relied on the Division Bench's order in CWP-13512-2020 titled 'Mahadev Enclave Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and others'. Respondents' contentions: The respondents, through a short affidavit and a letter from the Excise & Taxation Commissioner, submitted that the show-cause notice and the order dated 30.01.2025 were kept in abeyance until 31.01.2025, referencing the same Division Bench order. They did not present further arguments against the petitioner's claim.