Sahabdeen .A vs. The Commissioner / Additional Chief Secretary

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petitions in line with the order passed on 04.06.2024 in W.P.(MD)No.23603 of 2023 (Sri A.D.Vee Raja Mines and Minerals vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)). The operative part of that order directed the respondent to keep the recovery in abeyance pending further orders from the Hon'ble Supreme Court. If the levy is upheld by the Supreme Court, the respondent is at liberty to proceed with recovery. Conversely, if the issue is decided against the revenue, the impugned order shall be deemed quashed from the date of the Supreme Court's order. The reasoning is based on the pendency of the issue before the Supreme Court and the court's previous stance on similar matters. The ratio is that demands for GST on mining royalty should be kept in abeyance pending a final decision from the Supreme Court.

Facts

The petitioner, A. Sahabdeen, filed two writ petitions challenging notices dated 12.09.2022 and 00.08.2022 issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer-II and the Proper Officer, respectively. The issue concerns the levy of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on royalty paid to the Government for mining activities. This court had previously disposed of similar writ petitions in light of a Division Bench decision dated 08.01.2024 in Tvl.A.Venkatachalam vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Palladam II Assessment Circle, pending a decision from the Supreme Court. One such petition, W.P.(MD)No.23603 of 2023, was disposed of on 04.06.2024, directing the respondent to keep recovery in abeyance.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned notices dated 12.09.2022 and 00.08.2022, demanding GST on royalty paid for mining, are illegal and unconstitutional, pending final decision by the Supreme Court on the issue of GST levy on mining royalty? (Question of law). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought to quash the notices, relying on previous orders of this court that kept recovery in abeyance pending the Supreme Court's decision on the GST levy on mining royalty. The petitioner's argument is implicitly based on the principle that such demands should be stayed until the apex court clarifies the law. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state in opposition to the petitioner's plea for a stay or quashing of the notices. The court's order suggests the revenue's position was to await the Supreme Court's decision.