Reverse charge on mining royalty places service-tax liability on recipients and excludes them from threshold exemption benefits.

Royalty paid to a State Government for assignment of mining rights after the 2016 amendments is described as contractual consideration for a taxable service, with the recipient bearing service-tax liability under reverse charge. The small-service-provider threshold exemption is stated to apply to services provided by a supplier and to exclude services taxable under reverse charge; royalty-related liability therefore does not count towards the recipient's taxable-service turnover for that exemption. The notes further state that failure to register, pay tax and file returns, despite a contemporaneous clarification, may support extended limitation, interest and penalties for suppression.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether royalty paid to the State Government for mining rights after 1 April 2016 was liable to service tax under reverse charge mechanism; (ii) Whether the threshold exemption was available to a recipient liable under reverse charge; (iii) Whether the extended limitation period, interest and penalties were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether royalty paid to the State Government for mining rights after 1 April 2016 was liable to service tax under reverse charge mechanism.

Analysis: Royalty is contractual consideration paid by a mining lessee for enjoyment of mineral rights, rather than a tax. Following the post-1 April 2016 regime, assignment of a right to use natural resources by Government for consideration constituted a taxable service. The applicable notifications placed the entire tax liability upon the service recipient under reverse charge mechanism.

Conclusion: Royalty paid for mining rights during the relevant period was taxable under reverse charge mechanism, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the threshold exemption was available to a recipient liable under reverse charge.

Analysis: The threshold exemption applies to taxable services provided by a service provider and expressly excludes services on which tax is payable under reverse charge. As the royalty-related liability was on the recipient, it did not form part of the assessee's taxable-service turnover for claiming the exemption.

Conclusion: The threshold exemption was unavailable to the assessee liable under reverse charge.

Issue (iii): Whether the extended limitation period, interest and penalties were sustainable.

Analysis: The contemporaneous clarification expressly stated that consideration paid to Government for a licence or permission was taxable. Failure to obtain registration, discharge tax and file returns was held to constitute deliberate suppression with intent to evade payment, not a mere procedural lapse. Consequently, the extended limitation period and the penalty for suppression were attracted; the separate civil penalties for registration and return defaults also remained justified.

Conclusion: The extended limitation period, interest and all penalties were sustainable, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The service-tax liability on royalty paid for mining rights, together with consequential interest and statutory penalties, remains enforceable.

Ratio Decidendi: Consideration paid to Government for assignment of mining rights after the relevant 2016 amendments is taxable under reverse charge, and the small-service-provider threshold exemption is unavailable to the recipient liable for that tax.

---