Just a moment...
We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic
• Quick overview summary answering your query with references
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
• Detailed report covering:
- Overview Summary
- Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
- Relevant Case Laws
- Tariff / Classification / HSN
- Expert views from TaxTMI
- Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the impugned GST notices in FORM GST DRC-01A for tax periods 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 should be kept in abeyance pending decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on levy of GST on seigniorage fee/royalty, and on what terms such abeyance should be granted.
Analysis: The petitions challenge notices issued in FORM GST DRC-01A for the stated tax periods and seek restraint of further proceedings in view of an identical question of law pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court concerning levy of GST on seigniorage fee/royalty. Having regard to the pendency of the same issue before the Supreme Court, the proceedings on the impugned notices are directed to be held in abeyance until the Supreme Court decides the matter. As a condition for granting the abeyance, the petitioner is directed to deposit 10% of the disputed tax as security, consistent with directions previously issued in the petitioner's own case.
Conclusion: The impugned proceedings are to be kept in abeyance pending the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax as security. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly, in favour of the petitioner on an interim basis.