Telangana High Court
Shaik Abdul Shukur vs The Assistant Director Of Mines And ... on 31 January, 2025
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.2688 of 2025
O R D E R:
Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 3, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.
2. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is transporting the finished granite slabs from the State of Andhra Pradesh to the State of Maharashtra in Lorry bearing No.AP 39 UL 5586 under the cover of tax invoice and waybill obtained on the GST Portal; and that the respondent authorities have detained the same claiming that seigniorage fee has not been paid on the subject goods in terms of Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 ( for short 'the Act'), and as such, in exercise of powers conferred under the Act, the said goods are liable for confiscation.
3. Petitioner further contends that as the subject goods under transportation are finished goods and are covered by tax invoice and way bill evidencing purchase of goods from a registered Tax 2 Dealer in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the claim of the respondents for payment of seigniorage fee cannot be held to be valid in the light of the judgment of this Court dt.15.06.2016 passed in W.P.No.18030 of 2016.
4. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home submits that the petitioner by mentioning the goods under transport as 'granite slabs' in the tax invoice, is transporting the semi- finished/unfinished/uncut slabs, on which he is required to pay seigniorage fee.
5. I have taken note of the respective submissions made.
6. Having regard to the submissions made as above and taking note of the fact that the subject goods are supported by tax invoice and waybill generated on the GST portal, this Court is of the view that the respondent authorities are to be directed to verify the description of the goods as mentioned in the tax invoice with the goods under transport, and if it is found that the subject goods are finished goods, cut/granite slabs as mentioned in the description of the tax invoice, the respondent authorities shall allow further movement of the vehicle.
7. However, during such inspection, if the authorities find that the subject goods are semi-finished/unfinished/uncut slabs requiring to be worked upon, the respondent authorities 3 are at liberty to take further action in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder
8. Subject to above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
9. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed.
____________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J 31st January, 2025.
Note: Issue CC by 01.02.2025.
B/o(gra)