TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Halts GST Recovery on Seigniorage Fee, Permits Future Objections and Awaits Constitution Bench Ruling</h1> SC addressed GST liability challenge on seigniorage fee. Court referred to prior Division Bench judgment, directing petitioners to submit objections ... Levy of GST - Royalty - seigniorage fee paid by the petitioner to the Government - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed in the case of A. Venkatachalam v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Palladam [2024 (2) TMI 488 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where it was held that It is made clear that there shall be no recovery of GST on royalty until the Nine Judge Constitution Bench takes a decision. In view of the said judgment, these petitions are liable to be disposed of on the same terms. Consequently, in these cases, the petitioner is permitted to submit his reply to the intimation within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Issues involved: Assailing the GST liability under applicable GST laws in respect of seigniorage fee paid to the Government.Judgment Summary:Issue 1: Assailed GST liability under applicable GST lawsThe petitioner challenged the intimation communicating the GST liability on seigniorage fee paid to the Government. The Division Bench Judgment in A.Venkatachalam v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Palladam was considered, where directions were issued for submission of objections within four weeks and adjudication to be done after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The orders of adjudication were to be kept in abeyance until the Nine Judge Constitution Bench decides on the nature of royalty. No recovery of GST on royalty was allowed until the Nine Judge Constitution Bench decision. The petitioners were given the right to redress grievances before the appropriate forum. The challenge to the notification and circular was permitted to be acted upon after the outcome of the case pending before the Nine Judge Constitution Bench. All contentions were left open for the petitioners to raise in appropriate proceedings after the decision of the Nine Judge Constitution Bench.The petitions were disposed of based on the above terms, allowing the petitioner to submit a reply to the intimation within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. W.P.Nos.10158 & 10162 of 2024 were disposed of with no costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
