Telangana High Court
Dileep vs The Assistant Director Of Mines And ... on 29 January, 2025
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION Nos.2372, 2374 and 2411 of 2025
COMMON ORDER:
Since the issue involved in these Writ Petitions is one and
the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard Sri Girish Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for Sri
Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel for petitioners, learned
Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing on behalf of
respondent Nos.1 & 3 and 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, these
Writ Petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal at admission
stage.
3. It is the common case of the petitioners that they were
transporting the finished granite slabs from the State of Andhra
Pradesh to the State of Maharashtra under the cover of tax invoices
and waybills 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.
4. Petitioners further contend that the respondent authorities,
while issuing the impugned proceedings, have mentioned the
subject vehicle numbers wrongly in the impugned proceeding in
respect of two vehicles viz., KA 39A 0226 & KA 56 7151
[mentioned as KA-39 A 0266 & KA 56 7156].
5. Petitioners further contend 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 dated 15-06-2016 passed in
W.P.No.18030 of 2016.
6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf
of respondent Nos.1 and 3 would submit that the vehicle numbers
as noted in the impugned proceedings and the vehicle numbers
mentioned in the waybills generated on the GST Portal are
different and as such, the petitioners are transporting the goods
without having valid invoices and waybills.
7. On the aforesaid submission being made by the learned
Government Pleader, this Court had directed the learned
Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent
No.2 to place before this Court the photographs of the vehicles
seized by the respondent authorities and handed over to the
respondent No.2 for its safe custody.
8. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, learned Government
Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 has
placed before this Court the photographs of the two vehicles with
registration numbers and the numbers of vehicles seized are the
same as mentioned in the waybills. Thus, the respondent No.1 has
mentioned the lorry numbers wrongly in the impugned
proceedings.
9. Learned Government Pleader further submitted that the
petitioners by mentioning the goods under transport as 'granite
slabs' in the tax invoices, are transporting the semi-
finished/unfinished/uncut slabs, on which they are required to pay
seigniorage fee.
10. Having regard to the submissions made as above and taking
note of the fact that the subject goods are supported by tax invoices
and waybills 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 invoices 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 vehicles.
11. 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.
12. Subject to above direction, the Writ Petitions are disposed
of. No costs.
13. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall
stand closed.
___________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
Date: 29.01.2025
Note :- Issue C.C. by 30-01-2025.
B/o.
Vsv
