Telangana High Court
Tenaji Lahu Bhitade vs The Assistant Director Of Mines And ... on 7 February, 2025
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.3542 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 (Color) slabs from the State of
Andhra Pradesh to the State of Maharashtra in Lorry bearing
No.MH 16 CC 8787 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 the respondent authorities,
while issuing the impugned proceeding, have mentioned the
subject vehicle number wrongly in the impugned proceeding in
respect of the subject vehicle as MH 16 CC 8783.
4. Petitioner further contends that as the subject goods under
transportation are finished goods and are covered by tax
invoices and way bill evidencing purchase of goods from a
registered Tax 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.
5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home
appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, on instructions,
submits that the number of the vehicle seized is the same as
mentioned in the waybill, and thus, the 1st respondent has
mentioned the lorry number wrongly in the impugned
proceeding.
6. Learned Government Pleader further 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.
7. I have taken note of the respective submissions made.
8. 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.
9. 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
are at liberty to take further action in accordance with the
provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder
10. Subject to above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
No order as to costs.
11. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in
these writ petitions shall stand closed.
____________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
07th February, 2025.
Note: Issue CC today.
B/o(gra)
