Tvl. Sri. A.D.Vee. Raja Mines And Minerals vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

Held

The Court disposed of the five writ petitions in light of a previous order by a Division Bench of the same High Court dated January 8, 2024, in the case of Tvl.A.Venkatachalam vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST). That order had provided guidelines concerning show cause notices and directed authorities to keep adjudication pending the Supreme Court's decision on the levy of GST on royalty paid to the government. In the present case, the petitioner approached the court after the impugned orders were passed. Consequently, the Court directed the respondent to keep the recovery of the amounts under the impugned orders in abeyance until 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. If the issue is decided against the revenue, the impugned orders shall be deemed quashed from the date of the Supreme Court's order. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri A.D.Vee Raja Mines & Minerals, filed five writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), Tenkasi. These orders, dated May 25, 2023, pertained to the tax periods 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22. The petitioner sought to quash these orders as illegal, arbitrary, and against the principles of natural justice. The petitions were filed after the impugned orders were passed. The core issue revolves around the levy of GST on royalty paid to the government, a matter pending before a Nine Judges Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders passed by the respondent are illegal, arbitrary, and against the principles of natural justice, warranting quashing under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned orders should be quashed as illegal, arbitrary, and against the principles of natural justice. They relied on the common order passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in a batch of writ petitions, including Tvl.A.Venkatachalam vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Palladam II Assessment Circle, Palladam, dated January 8, 2024. This order directed authorities to keep adjudication pending the Supreme Court's decision on the levy of GST on royalty paid to the government. Respondent's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent. However, the respondent is the Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), Tenkasi, who passed the impugned orders.