Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeGSTHimachal Pradesh High Court Upholds GST On Royalty Paid By Mineral Concession...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds GST On Royalty Paid By Mineral Concession Holder For Any Mining Concession Granted By State

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld the GST on royalty paid by mineral concession holders for any mining concession granted by state.

The bench of Acting Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Satyen Vaidya has observed that the judgment rendered in India Cement Ltd.’s case has now been overruled by Nine-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Mineral Area Development Authority & anr. vs. M/s Steel Authority of India & anr. In which it has been held that royalty is not a tax. 

Background – GST on royalty paid by mineral concession holders

The petitioner/assessee has raised the issue whether there can be levy of GST on royalty paid by the mineral concession holder for any mining concession granted by the State.

The petitioner relied on the judgement rendered by Seven- Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in India Cement Ltd. and ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors. In which it was declared that royalty itself is a tax.

Earlier the demand for GST on royalty by the respondents was stayed by the Division Bench of the Court.

Conclusion

The court upheld the notices and dismissed the petition of the assessee.

Read More: Electronic Credit Ledger Can’t Be Blocked Citing Enforcement Authority’s Reports: Karnataka High Court

Case Details

Case Title:  M/s Lakhwinder Singh Stone Crusher Versus Union of India & ors.

Case No.:  CWP No. 8637/2023

Date: 4.11.2024

Counsel For Petitioner: Arvind Sharma

Counsel For Respondent: Anup Rattan

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

No Mini-Trial at Cognizance Stage: Directors’ Claim of Cooperation Must Be Examined During Trial

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against two individuals facing...

Missing Seized Records Must Be Considered While Testing ITC Claim; Duplicate GST Demands Ordered Corrected: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that the tax department’s inability to furnish seized...

Capital Addition Can’t Be Taxed on Assumptions in Reassessment: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has upheld the deletion of a ₹2.73 crore addition made...

GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Without Addressing Taxpayer’s Grounds: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has set aside an appellate order concerning cancellation of GST...

More like this

No Mini-Trial at Cognizance Stage: Directors’ Claim of Cooperation Must Be Examined During Trial

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against two individuals facing...

Missing Seized Records Must Be Considered While Testing ITC Claim; Duplicate GST Demands Ordered Corrected: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that the tax department’s inability to furnish seized...

Capital Addition Can’t Be Taxed on Assumptions in Reassessment: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has upheld the deletion of a ₹2.73 crore addition made...