Case Title: Gajendra Singh Parmar v. Assistant Commissioner, State Commercial Tax
Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench
Petition Number: W.P. No. 39580 of 2024
Judgment Date: 19 December 2024
Category: Royalty Payments – GST on Mining Lease
Relevant Sections: Section 9 of the CGST Act, 2017; Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Facts (Paras 2–4)
The petitioner, Gajendra Singh Parmar, challenged a demand notice dated 07.11.2024 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, State Commercial Tax, Ashoknagar, seeking payment of GST on royalty for mining leases covering FY 2018–19 to 2024–25. The petitioner contended that the issue of GST applicability on royalty was sub judice before the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 8752/2024, and hence, no coercive recovery action should be taken till a final verdict. Reliefs sought included quashing of the impugned notice, stay on recovery, and directions to await the Supreme Court’s decision.
Questions / Dispute
Whether the petitioner could seek quashing of a departmental communication demanding GST on royalty when the issue was pending before the Supreme Court, and whether the High Court should intervene at the notice stage under Article 226.
Observations (Paras 2–4)
The Division Bench observed that the communication dated 07.11.2024 was only an advisory or intimation, not a final demand or adjudication. The petitioner had an opportunity to respond before the authority, and such representation would be considered in accordance with law. The Bench reiterated that interference at a premature stage, particularly when statutory remedies are open, is unwarranted. The State counsel agreed that the petitioner could approach the assessing authority and raise all legal grounds.
Judgment (Para 5)
The Court permitted withdrawal of the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to approach the concerned authority with his objections. The authority was directed to take due cognizance and ensure lawful follow-up action. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner.
Summary of Cases Referred
| Case Name | Citation / Reference | Held |
|---|---|---|
| SLP (Civil) No. 8752/2024 | Pending before Supreme Court | Applicability of GST on mining royalty payments yet to be conclusively decided by Supreme Court; High Courts deferring adjudication till then. |
Between Fine Lines
This judgment underscores that mere advisory or preliminary communications from tax officers cannot be challenged directly through writ petitions. Taxpayers must first respond to such communications before the jurisdictional officer. The Court avoided pre-empting the Supreme Court’s decision on GST applicability to royalty, emphasizing procedural discipline and hierarchical remedies.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
