Karanam Prasannanjaneyulu vs. The Assistant Director Of Mines And Geology

Facts

The petitioner, Karanam Prasannanjaneyulu, was transporting polished granite slabs in a vehicle bearing registration number AP39UZ1959 from Andhra Pradesh to Maharashtra. The goods were covered by a tax invoice and an e-way bill generated on the GST portal. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Sangareddy (1st Respondent), detained the goods and vehicle, alleging that seigniorage fee had not been paid on the subject goods as per Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The petitioner contended that the goods were finished products and thus not liable for seigniorage fee, citing a previous High Court judgment. A discrepancy was noted regarding the vehicle number mentioned in the detention order versus the actual vehicle number.

Held

The Court directed the respondent authorities to verify the description of the goods in the tax invoice against the goods under transport. If the goods are found to be finished, cut granite slabs as stated in the tax invoice, the authorities are to allow the further movement of the vehicle. However, if the authorities find that the goods are semi-finished, unfinished, or uncut slabs requiring further work, they are at liberty to take further action in accordance with the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and the rules framed thereunder. The Court noted the submission that the vehicle number was wrongly mentioned in the impugned proceeding but accepted the respondent's assertion that the correct vehicle was seized. The ratio is that goods supported by valid tax invoices and e-way bills, if confirmed to be finished products, should not be detained for non-payment of seigniorage fees, but if they are found to be semi-finished or unfinished, further action under the relevant mining laws is permissible.

Key Issues

1. Whether the detention of polished granite slabs and the vehicle is arbitrary, contrary to law, and without jurisdiction, given that the goods were covered by a tax invoice and e-way bill, and the petitioner argues they are finished goods not liable for seigniorage fee under Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957? Petitioner's arguments: The goods are finished granite slabs, supported by a tax invoice and e-way bill from the GST portal, and therefore, the claim for seigniorage fee is invalid, relying on the High Court's judgment dated 15.06.2016 in W.P.No.18030 of 2016. The petitioner also pointed out a wrong vehicle number mentioned in the impugned proceeding. Revenue's arguments: The respondent authorities claim that seigniorage fee has not been paid. The Government Pleader for Home stated that the vehicle number in the detention order was mistakenly recorded, but the vehicle seized is the same as mentioned in the waybill. The Government Pleader for Mines and Geology argued that by describing the goods as 'granite slabs' in the tax invoice, the petitioner is transporting semi-finished/unfinished/uncut slabs, which are liable for seigniorage fee.