Shaik Abdul Shukur vs. The Assistant Director Of Mines And Geology

Facts

The petitioner, Shaik Abdul Shukur, was transporting polished granite slabs from Andhra Pradesh to Maharashtra in a vehicle covered by a tax invoice and e-way bill generated on the GST portal. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Sangareddy, 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, and that the goods were liable for confiscation. The petitioner contended that the goods were finished products covered by valid tax documents, making the demand for seigniorage fee invalid, citing a previous High Court judgment. The respondents argued that the description of 'granite slabs' in the invoice indicated semi-finished/unfinished slabs requiring seigniorage fee payment.

Held

The Court held that the respondent authorities were directed to verify the description of the goods in the tax invoice against the goods under transport. If the goods were found to be finished, cut granite slabs as stated in the tax invoice, then the further movement of the vehicle should be allowed. However, if the authorities discovered that the goods were semi-finished or unfinished, uncut slabs requiring further processing, they were at liberty to take further action in accordance with the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and its rules. The Court did not explicitly decide on the applicability of seigniorage fee on finished goods but remanded the matter for factual verification. The ratio is that the nature of the goods (finished vs. unfinished) is determinative of the applicability of seigniorage fee, and this factual determination should be made by the authorities based on documentary evidence and physical inspection.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seigniorage fee is payable on polished granite slabs when they are transported under a valid tax invoice and e-way bill, considering they are finished goods? (Question of law turning on Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and principles of GST law). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that since the goods were finished granite slabs, supported by a tax invoice and e-way bill from a registered dealer, the respondents' claim for seigniorage fee was invalid. They relied on a previous judgment of the High Court in W.P. No. 18030 of 2016. Respondent's contention: The respondents contended that the description 'granite slabs' in the tax invoice implied that the goods were semi-finished or unfinished, thus requiring the payment of seigniorage fee under the Act.