Subburaj.R vs. The Commissioner / Additional Chief Secretary
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, R. Subburaj, holds a lease for quarry operations and transportation of minerals for five years under the Tamil Nadu Minor and Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. The respondents, represented by the State Tax Officer, insisted that the petitioner obtain GST registration for quarry operations and pay GST on the seigniorage fee. The petitioner challenged a notice dated 22.08.2022 issued by the State Tax Officer. The petitioner argued that the levy of GST on mining leases/royalty is pending before the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Lakhwinder Singh Vs Union of India. The respondents contended that the writ petition was premature and the petitioner should submit objections.
Held
The Court, following its previous order in W.P(MD)No.20948 of 2022, dated 02.09.2022, which was based on the Supreme Court's interim order in M/s. Lakhwinder Singh Vs Union of India, directed the petitioner to submit his objections to the impugned notice dated 22.08.2022 and furnish the requested documents. The respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's objections and pass orders in accordance with law, specifically following the judgment in M/s. Lakhwinder Singh Supra. The Court also ordered that status quo be maintained by the respondents until such time as the objections are considered and orders are passed. The Court did not decide on the legality of the GST levy itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of the notice in light of the pending Supreme Court case.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned notice dated 22.08.2022 issued by the State Tax Officer, Bodinayakkanur Assessment Circle, is illegal and unconstitutional, considering the pending challenge to the levy of GST on mining leases/royalty before the Supreme Court in M/s. Lakhwinder Singh Vs Union of India? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the levy of GST on mining leases/royalty is sub judice before the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Lakhwinder Singh Vs Union of India, and that similar matters have been stayed by the Apex Court and followed by various High Courts. Therefore, the demand for GST registration and payment on seigniorage fee is premature and illegal. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents argued that the writ petition is premature, and the petitioner ought to submit his objections to the notice before the concerned authority. They contended that the writ petition is liable to be rejected on this ground.
Sections Cited
Rule 19(1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor and Mineral Concession Rules, 1959
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned notice issued by the 2nd Respondent, dated 22.08.2022. 2. The Petitioner was granted lease for carrying quarry operations and transporting the same from his patta land to Theni District in terms of Rule 19(1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor and Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 for a period of 5 years. The Petitioner has been running the quarry operations and transporting the quarried minerals till now. While so, the Respondents insisting that the Petitioner ought to obtain registration under the Goods and Services Tax Act with regard to quarry operations and also forced to pay the GST on the seigniorage fee. It is submitted that there is challenge to the levy of GST pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Lakhwinder Singh Vs Union of India and others. This Court in similar circumstances was pleased to pass the following order in W.P(MD)No. 20948 of 2022, dated 02.09.2022:
“5. Considering the materials and perusal of the materials available on the records, it is seen that the Honourable Apex Court in the case of M/s.Lakhwinder Singh Vs Union of India and others, had granted stay for payment of GST for grant of mining lease/royalty by the Petitioner. Further, it has been followed consistently by various Courts including this Court. It is further seen that the impugned order is only a notice. The petitioner is 2/5 directed to appear before the respondents and make his objections with necessary documents. The petitioner is directed to approach the second respondent within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and make his objections. Further, the second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's objections and dispose the same in accordance with law following the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court (cited Supra). Till such time, status quo to be maintained by the respondents.”
It is submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondents that the writ petition is premature. The Petitioner ought to be submit his objections and the writ petition is liable to be rejected.
Following the order of this Court in W.P(MD)No.20948 of 2022, dated 02.09.2022, this Court directs the Petitioner to submit his objections to the impugned notice, dated 22.08.2022 and furnish the documents that have been called for and take part in the proceedings. The Respondents are directed to consider the objections of the Petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law as laid down in the case of Lakhwinder Singh Supra. Till such time, status quo to be maintained by the Respondents. 3/5
With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No sn To 1.The Commissioner/Additional Chief Secretary, Commercial Tax Department, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai. 2.The State Tax Officer, Bodinayakkanur Assessment Circle, Theni. 4/5 MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
sn
2022 5/5
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.