Facts of the Case
The petitioner was declared the successful bidder in a
Government tender conducted under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules
for obtaining a five-year quarry lease over Government land for rough stone
extraction. After execution of the lease and payment of statutory charges
including seigniorage charges, the State Tax Department issued a notice
directing the petitioner to obtain GST registration and pay GST on the
seigniorage charges paid to the Geology and Mining Department.
Aggrieved by the notice, the petitioner approached the Madras High Court seeking quashing of the impugned notice.
Issues Involved
- Whether
GST is payable on seigniorage charges/royalty paid for quarry and mining
lease operations.
- Whether
the GST authorities could proceed with assessment under Section 63 of the
TNGST Act before considering the pending legal position regarding GST on
mining royalty.
- Whether the impugned notice deserved to be quashed at the notice stage.
Petitioner's Arguments
- The
petitioner had lawfully obtained the quarry lease through the Government
tender process.
- GST
was sought to be levied on the seigniorage charges already paid to the
Mining Department.
- The
legality of GST on mining royalty was already under challenge before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Lakhwinder Singh vs Union of India &
Others.
- The
Supreme Court had granted interim protection regarding payment of GST on
mining lease/royalty, and similar protection had been followed by various
High Courts.
- Therefore, issuance of the impugned notice was premature and unsustainable.
Respondent's Arguments
The State submitted that:
- Seigniorage
charges represent consideration paid to the Government for granting the
right to extract minerals.
- Such
permission amounts to a supply of service under Section 7 of the GST Act.
- Under
Entry No. 5 of Notification No. 13/2017-Central Tax (Rate), GST is payable
by the recipient under the Reverse Charge Mechanism in terms of Section
9(3).
- The
petitioner neither filed objections nor appeared for the scheduled
personal hearings despite receiving notice.
- The impugned communication was only a show cause notice giving the petitioner an opportunity to submit objections before assessment under Section 63 of the TNGST Act.
Court Order / Findings
The Madras High Court observed that:
- The
Hon'ble Supreme Court had already granted interim protection in relation
to GST on mining lease/royalty in M/s Lakhwinder Singh vs Union of
India & Others.
- Various
High Courts had consistently followed the said interim protection.
- The
impugned communication was only a show cause notice and not a final
assessment order.
- The
petitioner should first submit detailed objections before the assessing
authority along with supporting documents and relevant judicial
precedents.
- The
assessing authority was directed to consider those objections in
accordance with law while keeping in view the Supreme Court's order.
- Till disposal of the objections, the respondents were directed to maintain status quo.
Important Clarification
This judgment does not finally determine the taxability of GST on mining royalty or seigniorage charges. Instead, the High Court protected the petitioner's rights by directing the GST authority to consider the objections in light of the interim orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and ordered maintenance of status quo until such consideration.
Key Takeaways
- GST
disputes relating to mining royalty remain subject to the final decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
- A
show cause notice should ordinarily be replied to before invoking writ
jurisdiction.
- Authorities
must consider binding judicial precedents and interim orders while
deciding GST disputes.
- Assessment
proceedings under Section 63 of the TNGST Act should be conducted after
granting adequate opportunity to the taxpayer.
- Status quo may be directed where the legal issue is pending before the Supreme Court.
Link to Download the Order
https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1785402008_2364compressed.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment