Telangana High Court
Kagithala Jyothi, vs The Assistant Director Of Mines And ... on 10 February, 2025
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.3618 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 perused the record. 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 Gujarat in Lorry bearing No.AP 39 U 9225 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
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 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 shall
stand closed.
____________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
Date : 10-02-2025.
Note :- Issue C.C. by 11-02-2025.
B/o.
Vsv
