<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (11) TMI 2018 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469803</link>
    <description>GST levy on royalty and seigniorage charges arising from mining activity remained unresolved, as the Madras HC did not finally decide the taxability issue. The Court disposed of the writ petition and granted liberty to pursue the statutory appeal, noting the pending final decision of the Supreme Court. The operative effect was that the petitioner was left to follow the available statutory remedy rather than obtain a merits determination on GST liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2026 19:00:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=909909" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 2018 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469803</link>
      <description>GST levy on royalty and seigniorage charges arising from mining activity remained unresolved, as the Madras HC did not finally decide the taxability issue. The Court disposed of the writ petition and granted liberty to pursue the statutory appeal, noting the pending final decision of the Supreme Court. The operative effect was that the petitioner was left to follow the available statutory remedy rather than obtain a merits determination on GST liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469803</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>