GST on royalty kept in abeyance as writ petitions await Constitution Bench ruling on the nature of royalty.

Challenges to GST on royalty/seigniorage were not finally adjudicated because the determinative question-the nature of royalty-was already pending before a Nine Judge Constitution Bench. The court preserved the parties' rights, directed petitioners facing show cause notices to file objections, required adjudication to proceed in accordance with law, kept adjudication orders in abeyance until the Constitution Bench decision, and barred recovery of GST on royalty in the meantime. All contentions were left open for future proceedings after the authoritative ruling on royalty.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging the levy of GST on royalty and the connected notification and circular were to be finally adjudicated on merits or disposed of with directions pending the decision of the Nine Judge Constitution Bench on the nature of royalty.

Analysis: The batch involved challenges to the GST levy on royalty or seigniorage, the notification prescribing the rate of tax, the circular clarifying the levy, and show cause notices and adjudication orders. The Court noted that the core controversy turned on the nature of royalty, an issue already pending before the Nine Judge Constitution Bench, and that the outcome of that reference would materially affect all connected writ petitions. In that backdrop, the Court directed the petitioners facing show cause notices to file objections, required adjudication to proceed in accordance with law, kept adjudication orders in abeyance until the Constitution Bench decision, and ordered that there be no recovery of GST on royalty meanwhile. It also left all contentions open for the petitioners to pursue in appropriate proceedings after the Constitution Bench decision.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not finally decided on merits and were disposed of with protective and procedural directions, including suspension of recovery until the pending Constitution Bench ruling.

Final Conclusion: The dispute was kept open for future adjudication after the authoritative determination of the nature of royalty, while interim protection against recovery was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the determinative question in connected tax challenges is already pending authoritative consideration before a Constitution Bench, the writ court may dispose of the matters by preserving the parties' rights, directing adjudication in accordance with law, and staying recovery until that decision.

---