Saravanan.S vs. The Commissioner / Additional Chief Secretary
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, S. Saravanan, holds a lease for quarry operations and transporting minerals from his patta land in Madurai District, granted under the Tamil Nadu Minor and Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, for a period of 5 years. The Respondents, the Commissioner/Additional Chief Secretary and the State Tax Officer, are insisting that the Petitioner obtain GST registration for his quarry operations and pay GST on the seigniorage fee. The Petitioner challenges a notice dated 11.08.2022 issued by the 2nd Respondent. The Petitioner submits 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 and others, and this Court has previously passed orders in similar circumstances.
Held
The Court, following its previous order in W.P(MD)No.20948 of 2022, directed the Petitioner to submit his objections to the impugned notice dated 11.08.2022 and furnish the requested documents. The Respondents were directed to consider the Petitioner's objections and pass orders in accordance with law, specifically adhering to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 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 writ petition was disposed of with these directions, and no costs were awarded. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the ultimate outcome of the Petitioner's objections was to be decided by the Respondent in accordance with law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned notice dated 11.08.2022 issued by the 2nd Respondent 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 and others? Petitioner's Arguments: - The Petitioner argued that the levy of GST on mining leases/royalty is currently under challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Lakhwinder Singh Vs Union of India and others. - The Petitioner relied on a previous order of this Court in W.P(MD)No.20948 of 2022, dated 02.09.2022, which granted a stay for the payment of GST for grant of mining lease/royalty and directed similar matters to be considered in accordance with the Apex Court's judgment. Respondents' Arguments: - The learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondents contended that the writ petition is premature. - The Respondents argued that the Petitioner ought to submit his objections to the notice and 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 11.08.2022. 2. The Petitioner was granted lease for carrying quarry operations and transporting the same from his patta land to Madurai 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 are insisting that the Petitioner ought to obtain registration under the Goods and Services Tax Act with regard to quarry operations and insisting on 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 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis seen that the impugned order is only a notice. The petitioner is 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 11.08.2022 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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, Melur Assessment Circle, Madurai. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
sn
2022 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.