TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the buyer of iron ore purchased through auction conducted under directions of the Monitoring Committee was liable to service tax under reverse charge mechanism on the royalty and forest development tax component, on the footing that it had received a taxable service of lease of mine and assignment of right to use natural resources.
Analysis: The liability to pay royalty under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 lies on the holder of the mining lease, not on the auction purchaser. The auction mechanism devised under the Supreme Court's directions only regulated collection and remittance of sale consideration, royalty, forest development tax and other charges, and did not alter the substantive incidence of royalty or convert the buyer into the recipient of a taxable service. Since the appellant was neither the mining lease holder nor a person granted the right to exploit the mine, no service could be said to have been received by it from the State Government for the purpose of service tax. The demand founded on reverse charge was therefore inconsistent with the statutory scheme and the manner in which the auction collections were directed to be handled.
Conclusion: The appellant was not liable to pay service tax on the royalty and forest development tax component under reverse charge mechanism.
TaxTMI 
