GST show cause notices on royalty-linked liability stayed in abeyance while objections and merits are pursued

GST show cause notices concerning seigniorage fee and turnover from sale of quarried minerals were not quashed. The petitioner was permitted to file objections or a reply and the matter was left for adjudication in accordance with law after hearing. Interim protection was preserved by keeping recovery on royalty-related liability in abeyance pending the constitutional determination referred to in the earlier judgment. The court thus maintained the notice process, protected the petitioner's right to object, and deferred final resolution of the royalty-linked GST issue to the competent authority and the pending higher judicial ruling.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the show cause notice proposing GST liability on seigniorage fee required interference. (ii) Whether the show cause notice proposing GST liability on turnover from sale of quarried minerals required interference.

Issue (i): Whether the show cause notice proposing GST liability on seigniorage fee required interference.

Analysis: The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the earlier Division Bench directions dealing with challenges to notices concerning royalty-related GST liability. The petitioner was given liberty to file objections to the notice, and further adjudication was to be undertaken in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner. Recovery on royalty was to remain stayed until the constitution bench decision referred to in the earlier judgment.

Conclusion: The challenge to GST on seigniorage fee was not finally adjudicated and was disposed of in terms of the earlier binding directions, with interim protection against recovery.

Issue (ii): Whether the show cause notice proposing GST liability on turnover from sale of quarried minerals required interference.

Analysis: As regards turnover, the Court directed the parties to proceed further in accordance with law and permitted the petitioner to submit a reply to the show cause notice within four weeks from receipt of the order.

Conclusion: The notice on turnover was not quashed, and the petitioner was confined to the remedy of filing a reply and pursuing the matter in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of with limited relief, preserving the petitioner's right to object to the notice and ensuring that the GST demand on royalty-related liability would remain subject to the outcome of the pending constitutional determination.

Ratio Decidendi: A challenge to a GST show cause notice concerning royalty-related liability may be disposed of by permitting objections and keeping recovery in abeyance until the relevant higher judicial determination, while leaving adjudication on merits to the statutory authority.

---