C.Maheswari vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, C. Maheswari, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 29.10.2025 issued by the State Tax Officer, Sengottai. The notice sought to levy GST amounting to Rs. 5,28,646/- on seigniorage fee/royalty and DMFT paid for quarrying and transporting minerals for the tax period 2021-2022. The petitioner argued that the issue of levying GST on seigniorage fee/royalty for quarrying and transporting minerals is currently pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The respondent is the State Tax Officer.

Held

The Court acknowledged that the issue concerning the levy of GST on seigniorage fee/royalty paid for quarrying and transporting minerals is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage. The respondent was directed to keep all further proceedings in abeyance and await the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, the respondent is to proceed in accordance with law. As a condition, the petitioner was directed to deposit 10% of the disputed tax amount as security. The Court did not decide the merits of the GST levy itself, deferring to the Supreme Court's decision.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned notice dated 29.10.2025, levying GST on seigniorage fee/royalty and DMFT paid for quarrying and transporting minerals for the tax period 2021-2022, is liable to be quashed? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the very issue of levying GST on seigniorage fee/royalty paid for quarrying and transporting minerals is presently sub judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the proceedings initiated by the respondent should be kept in abeyance. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondent's side regarding the merits of the GST levy. The respondent was represented by the Additional Government Pleader.