Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Prasad Yanala Hari, vs The Union Of India, on 16 April, 2024
APHC010172722024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3481]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT PETITION NO: 8730/2024
Between:
Prasad Yanala Hari, ...PETITIONER
AND
The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SUDEEPTHI POTLURI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
2. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
3. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the same subject matter, various petitions are pending and in one of the writ petitions, being W.P.No.30300 of 2021, the following order was passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court:-
"Heard Mr. Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Nagaraja Kumari, learned Assistant Government Pleader, Commercial Tax, for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has moved the Court for the following relief:
"...to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction st declaring the action of the 1 respondent in passing the Proceedings, dated 30.03.2021 served on the petitioner on 22.07.2021 for the tax period April, 2019 to March, 2020 under the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, levying GST on the Royalty amount paid to the Government, without considering the objections of the Petitioner and not granting sufficient opportunity of being heard, though against the Revised Show Cause Notice, the Petitioner sought personal hearing while filing his explanation, but, without granting the personal hearing, passing the Proceedings levying tax on the turnover of Rs.13,32,406/- at Rs.1,19,916/-, interest under Section 50 of the SGST Act, 2017 of Rs.20,325/- and 100% penalty of Rs.1,19,916/- under the SGST Act, 2017, as arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the SGST Act, 2017, without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently st set aside the Proceedings of the 1 respondent, dated 30.03.2021 as null and void and pass such other order or orders....."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already paid royalty charges for the minerals extracted, but still, he has been issued impugned order dated 30.03.2021 with regard to the charging of GST on the same minerals on which royalty has already been paid. Learned counsel submitted that in Mineral Area Development Authority & Ors. Steel Authority of India & Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 450, after noting the conflict between two earlier decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the matter has been referred to a Nine Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. Learned counsel submitted that after such reference, when impugned order for payment of GST was issued, the matter again went to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in one such case, being Writ Petition (Civil) No.1076 of 2021 (M/s. Lakhwinder Singh Versus Union of India & Others), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while tagging the case with SLP (C ) No.37326 of 2017, has passed interim orders staying payment of GST for grant of mining lease/ royalty. Thus, learned counsel submitted that the Court may also grant interim protection to the petitioner.
5. It was further brought to the notice of the Court that in similar matter in W.P.No.10407 of 2021 (M/s. Venkata Sai Granites vs. The Union of India and others), interim stay has been granted by this Court suspending the impugned show cause notice.
6. Learned Government Pleader, Commercial Tax, submitted that only impugned order has been issued.
7. Having considered the matter, since the very issue as to whether GST would be chargeable on minerals on which already royalty has been paid is actively under consideration before a Nine Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the present matter, the petitioner has made out a case for interim order.
8. Accordingly, the matter be listed after disposal of Writ Petition (Civil) No.1076 of 2021 and SLP(C) No.37326 of 2017.
9. In the meantime, there shall be stay of the order dated 30.03.2021 issued to the petitioner, which is impugned in the present writ petition.
10. The parties are at liberty to mention the matter before the Court upon disposal of the cases before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
11. In the meantime, pleadings be completed."
2. It is submitted that the matter is still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the same order may be passed in the petitioner's case also.
4. Accordingly, it is provided that, there shall be a stay of the proceedings dated 16.03.2023, impugned in the present writ petition.
5. The parties are at liberty to mention the matter before the appropriate Court, upon disposal of the cases pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. The respondents may also file the counter affidavits before the next listing.
7. List along with W.P.No.30300 of 2021, after disposal of W.P (Civil) No.1076 of 2021 and SLP (C) No.37326 of 2017.
_________________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J ________________________________ KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA,J Date: 16.04.2024 AG