Tvl. Samukha Blue Metal and M Sand,Rep. by its Proprietor v. Nagaraj, S.F. No

W.P.No.43335 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11.11.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANANW.P.No.43335 of 2025andW.M.P.Nos.48513 & 48514 of 2025Tvl. Samukha Blue Metal and M Sand,Rep. by its Proprietor V. Nagaraj, S.F. No.2/3, 4/3, 5/1, 5/2, Athirmugam Village , Shoolagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri - 635 105. ... Petitioner Vs.1. The Deputy State Tax Officer, Adjudication and Legal Wing, Hosur – 635130.2. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Hosur (North)-I Hosur- 635109. ... Respondents Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for 1st Respondent’s Order dated 29.01.2024 with Ref. No. ZD330124138993E and 2nd Respondent’s consequential “Urgent notice” dated 26.08.2025 and quash the same.1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.43335 of 2025 For Petitioner : Mr.Adithya Reddy For Respondents : Mrs.K.Vasanthamala Government Advocate ORDERMrs.K.Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondents.2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate for the respondents, this Writ Petition is being disposed of at the time of admission.3. The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned Order dated 29.01.2024 in DRC-07 passed by the 1st respondent under Section 74 of the respective GST enactments for the tax period 2021-2022 and the consequential recovery notice issued by the 2nd respondent. By the impugned order, the demand proposed in the Show Cause Notice in DRC-01 dated 28.07.2023 has been confirmed. 4. The facts on record reveal that the petitioner replied to the Show Cause Notice in DRC-01 dated 28.07.2023 and also attended the personal 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.43335 of 2025hearing before the respondents, which further culminated in the impugned Order in DRC-07 dated 29.01.2024. The present writ petition was filed only on 09.10.2025.5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after the DRC-01 notice dated 28.07.2023, an intimation in DRC-01A was issued on 22.01.2024 to the petitioner by the office of the 2nd respondent, calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,04,76,000/-. This Notice dated 22.01.2024 was successfully challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.No.7913 of 2024.6. This Court, following the decision of the Division Bench in W.P.No.30974 of 2022 batch dated 08.01.2024, disposed of the Writ Petition in W.P.No.7913 of 2024 vide Order dated 26.03.2024 by directing the petitioner to file a reply to the intimation in DRC-01A dated 22.01.2024. Meanwhile, the impugned order was passed on 29.01.2024.7. Operative portion of the Order dated 26.03.2024 is extracted hereunder:“4. The Division Bench of this Court issued the following 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.43335 of 2025directions at paragraph 9 of the judgment: "9. In these circumstances, we deem it fit and appropriate to issue the following directions: (i) In the cases, where the challenge is made to the show cause notices, the writ petitioners shall submit their objections / representations within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.(ii) Upon receipt of the objections / representations from the writ petitioners, the authority concerned shall proceed with the adjudication, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. However, the orders of adjudication shall be kept in abeyance until the Nine Judge Constitution Bench decides the issue as to the nature of royalty.(iii) It is made clear that there shall be no recovery of GST on royalty until the Nine Judge Constitution Bench takes a decision.(iv) Needless to state that on the matters being decided, the writ petitioners if still aggrieved, shall redress their grievance(s), if any, before the appropriate forum, including by filing appeal(s).(v) Insofar as the challenge to the notification as well as the circular, it is open to the writ petitioners to act upon, after the outcome of the case pending before the Nine Judge Constitution Bench.(vi) It is also made clear that all the contentions are left open for the writ petitioners to raise in appropriate proceedings, after the outcome of the decision of the Nine Judge Constitution Bench." 5. In view of the said judgment, this petition is liable to be disposed of on the same terms. Consequently, the petitioner is permitted to submit his reply to the intimation within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.6. W.P.No.7913 of 2024 is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.8889 of 2024 is closed.” 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.43335 of 20258. The demand confirmed by the impugned Order dated 29.01.2024 passed for the tax period 2021-2022 is a composite demand as detailed below:5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.43335 of 20256/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.43335 of 20257/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.43335 of 20259. It is noticed that there is an overlap in the demand proposed in the Notice in DRC-01A dated 22.01.2024, which is the subject matter of 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.43335 of 2025challenge in W.P.No.7913 of 2024, which came to be disposed vide Order dated 26.03.2024 and a part of the demand insofar as the lease rent paid by the petitioner is concerned. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that the levy of GST on the seigniorage fee has been paid voluntarily by the petitioner, but whereas the demand on the lease rent on account of lease of immovable property, the petitioner is not liable to pay GST. 11. In this connection, it is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that taxes should be paid only on a ‘forward charge’ basis in accordance with the provisions of the respective GST enactments, and further submitted that initiation of proceedings under Section 74 of the respective GST enactments is arbitrary and unreasonable. 12. At this stage, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents would submit that the entire amount of dispute tax i.e Rs.1,04,84,366/- has already been recovered from the petitioner in two installments on 29.08.2025 and 09.09.2025 (Rs.52,42,183/- each). 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.43335 of 202513. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 14. The petitioner’s submission that there was a confusion in the light of the order secured by the petitioner in W.P.No.7913 of 2024 dated 26.03.2024 merits consideration. 15. Considering the fact that the entire amount of the disputed tax as confirmed vide impugned order has already been recovered from the petitioner, the petitioner is given liberty to work out the statutory appeal remedy, subject to the petitioner filing an appeal before the appellate authority within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.16. Since the entire amount of disputed tax has already been recovered, no further pre-deposit is required to be made.17. If the petitioner files an appeal against the impugned Order dated 29.01.2024 within the stipulated time, the appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal on merits and in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.43335 of 2025without reference to the aspect of limitation.18. In case the petitioner fails to comply with the above stipulation, the respondents are at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in the manner known to law.19. With these directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. 11.11.2025rajaNeutral Citation : Yes / NoTo1. The Deputy State Tax Officer, Adjudication and Legal Wing, Hosur – 635130.2. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Hosur (North)-I Hosur- 635109. 11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.43335 of 2025C.SARAVANAN, J.rajaW.P.No.43335 of 202511.11.202512/12