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 respondent, the State Tax Officer, Sengottai. The notice sought to levy Goods and Services Tax (GST) amounting to Rs. 4,48,588/- on seigniorage fee/royalty and DMFT paid for quarrying and transporting minerals for the tax period 2020-2021. 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 High Court, considering this pendency, directed the respondent to keep all proceedings in abeyance and await the Supreme Court's decision.

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 High Court decided to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage. The Court directed the respondent to keep all further proceedings related to the impugned notice in abeyance. The respondent is mandated to await the orders from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and then proceed in accordance with the law. As a condition, the petitioner was directed to deposit 10% of the disputed tax amount as security. The Court did not decide on the merits of the GST levy itself, deferring to the Supreme Court's ultimate decision.

Key Issues

1. Whether the levy of GST on seigniorage fee/royalty and DMFT paid for quarrying and transporting minerals for the tax period 2020-2021 is legally sustainable, considering the pendency of a similar issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the core issue of levying GST on seigniorage fee/royalty for quarrying and transporting minerals is presently sub-judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, proceedings at the High Court level should be held in abeyance until a final decision is rendered by the apex court. Respondent's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent. However, the respondent issued the impugned notice, indicating an initial stance in favour of levying the GST.