Raja Kishore Mishra vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The Petitioner, Raja Kishore Mishra, challenged a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 24th February, 2022, issued by the Opposite Parties (Union of India and others) under the GST regime. The core issue revolved around whether 'Royalty' is taxable under GST. The Petitioner had filed a reply to the SCN during the pendency of the writ petition but had not enclosed a copy of a previous judgment from this Court in a similar case, Mitambini Mishra v. Union of India. The Opposite Parties, represented by learned counsel, appeared before the Court.

Held

The Court acknowledged that the issue concerning the taxability of 'Royalty' under the GST regime was covered by its previous judgment in Mitambini Mishra v. Union of India. While the Court did not interfere with the SCN itself, it permitted the Petitioner to file a supplementary reply to the SCN. This supplementary reply was to include a copy of the Mitambini Mishra judgment and any further submissions the Petitioner wished to make. The Court directed that the order on the SCN should be passed within three months thereafter, taking into account this additional reply. The Petitioner was advised that depending on the order passed on the SCN, they would be at liberty to seek appropriate remedies. No further directions were deemed necessary at this stage.

Key Issues

1. Whether the issue of taxability of 'Royalty' under the GST regime, as raised in the impugned Show Cause Notice (SCN), is covered by the previous judgment of this Court in Mitambini Mishra v. Union of India and others dated 26th July, 2022? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the issue in the present case is identical to the one decided in Mitambini Mishra v. Union of India. The Petitioner sought to rely on this previous judgment to inform the decision on the SCN. Revenue/State's Contention: The Opposite Parties did not explicitly argue on the merits of the taxability of 'Royalty' in this specific proceeding. Their appearance was primarily in response to the writ petition challenging the SCN. The Court noted that the issue was covered by a prior judgment.