Kishor Singh and Hari Nandan Choudhary (A Partnership Firm) v. The State of Jharkhand and others
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 1996 of 2021 M/s. Polycab India Limited ... Petitioner The Union of India & others … Respondents Versus --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner For the CGST & CX --- : Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate Order No.25 Dated 09th May, 2023 --- As jointly prayed, let this matter be listed on 28.06.2023. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 2425 of 2023 Koushal Kishor Singh and Hari Nandan Choudhary (A Partnership Firm) ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand and others … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner For the State For the CGST & CX --- : Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate : Mr. Ashok Kr. Yadav, Sr.S.C. I : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate Order No.02 Dated 09th May, 2023 --- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court vide order dated 20.04.2022 passed in a batch of writ petitions led by W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 in the case of M/s Mandhan Minerals Corporation versus Union of India and others has been pleased to grant interim protection from levy of GST on royalty. It is submitted that the issues being common, similar interim protection may be granted to the petitioner pending final adjudication. Learned counsel for the Respondent State of Jharkhand and CGST, both pray for and are allowed three weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Two weeks’ time thereafter is allowed to the learned counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder, if necessary. Since this Court has granted interim protection on the levy of GST on mining lease / royalty to similarly situated petitioners vide order dated 20.04.2022 passed in W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 and other analogous cases, interim protection in the same manner is being granted to the petitioner herein. The operative portion at para 9 of the order dated 20.04.2022 is extracted herein below: “9. Following the interim order passed by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Lakhwinder Singh (supra) dated 04.10.2021, this Court had been pleased to grant interim protection on levy of GST on mining lease / royalty/DMF. In the background of the legal position that royalty has been considered to be a tax or profit pendre and the issue is pending before the 9 Judge Constitution Bench, we are of the considered view that the petitioners have made out a case for interim protection. As such, there shall be stay of recovery of GST for grant of mining lease/ royalty/DMF from the petitioners till further orders. However, the Revenue is not restrained from conducting and completing the assessment proceedings. 2. Since interim protection has been granted earlier in the case of Sunita Ganguly and others Vrs. Union of India & others vide order dated 02.03.2021 passed in W.P.(T) No. 3878 of 2020 and other analogous cases on levy of service tax on royalty/DMF, similar interim protection is being granted in W.P.(T) No. 897 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 903 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 926 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 927 of 2022 where the levy of service tax on royalty/ DMF is under challenge. As such, interim order dated 02.03.2021 shall govern the case of said writ petitioners also.” Let this matter be listed along with W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 on 19.07.2023. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 2426 of 2023 Koushal Kishor Singh and Hari Nandan Choudhary (A Partnership Firm) ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand and others … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner For the State For the CGST & CX
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate : Mr. Ashok Kr. Yadav, Sr.S.C. I : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate Order No.02 Dated 09th May, 2023 --- A supplementary affidavit is being filed by Mr. Sumit Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner in order to remove the defect No. 4, as pointed out by the office. The same is accepted and accordingly defect No. 4 is ignored in view of the said affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court vide order dated 20.04.2022 passed in a batch of writ petitions led by W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 in the case of M/s Mandhan Minerals Corporation versus Union of India and others has been pleased to grant interim protection from levy of GST on royalty. It is submitted that the issues being common, similar interim protection may be granted to the petitioner pending final adjudication. Learned counsel for the Respondent State of Jharkhand and CGST, both pray for and are allowed three weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Two weeks’ time thereafter is allowed to the learned counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder, if necessary. Since this Court has granted interim protection on the levy of GST on mining lease / royalty to similarly situated petitioners vide order dated 20.04.2022 passed in W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 and other analogous cases, interim protection in the same manner is being granted to the petitioner herein. The operative portion at para 9 of the order dated 20.04.2022 is extracted herein below: “9. Following the interim order passed by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Lakhwinder Singh (supra) dated 04.10.2021, this Court had been pleased to grant interim protection on levy of GST on mining lease / royalty/DMF. In the background of the legal position that royalty has been considered to be a tax or profit pendre and the issue is pending before the 9 Judge Constitution Bench, we are of 2. the considered view that the petitioners have made out a case for interim protection. As such, there shall be stay of recovery of GST for grant of mining lease/ royalty/DMF from the petitioners till further orders. However, the Revenue is not restrained from conducting and completing the assessment proceedings. Since interim protection has been granted earlier in the case of Sunita Ganguly and others Vrs. Union of India & others vide order dated 02.03.2021 passed in W.P.(T) No. 3878 of 2020 and other analogous cases on levy of service tax on royalty/DMF, similar interim protection is being granted in W.P.(T) No. 897 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 903 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 926 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 927 of 2022 where the levy of service tax on royalty/ DMF is under challenge. As such, interim order dated 02.03.2021 shall govern the case of said writ petitioners also.” Let this matter be listed along with W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 on 19.07.2023. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 1900 of 2023 Satya Laghu Udyog ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand and others … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner For the State For the CGST & CX --- : Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG II : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate Order No.02 Dated 09th May, 2023 --- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court vide order dated 20.04.2022 passed in a batch of writ petitions led by W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 in the case of M/s Mandhan Minerals Corporation versus Union of India and others has been pleased to grant interim protection from levy of GST on royalty. It is submitted that the issues being common, similar interim protection may be granted to the petitioner pending final adjudication. Learned counsel for the Respondent State of Jharkhand and CGST, both pray for and are allowed three weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Two weeks’ time thereafter is allowed to the learned counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder, if necessary. Since this Court has granted interim protection on the levy of GST on mining lease / royalty to similarly situated petitioners vide order dated 20.04.2022 passed in W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 and other analogous cases, interim protection in the same manner is being granted to the petitioner herein. The operative portion at para 9 of the order dated 20.04.2022 is extracted herein below: “9. Following the interim order passed by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Lakhwinder Singh (supra) dated 04.10.2021, this Court had been pleased to grant interim protection on levy of GST on mining lease / royalty/DMF. In the background of the legal position that royalty has been considered to be a tax or profit pendre and the issue is pending before the 9 Judge Constitution Bench, we are of the considered view that the petitioners have made out a case for interim protection. As such, there shall be stay of recovery of GST for grant of mining lease/ royalty/DMF from the petitioners till further orders. However, the Revenue is not restrained from conducting and completing the assessment proceedings. Since interim protection has been granted earlier in the case of Sunita Ganguly and others Vrs. Union of India & others vide order dated 02.03.2021 passed in W.P.(T) No. 3878 of 2020 and 2. other analogous cases on levy of service tax on royalty/DMF, similar interim protection is being granted in W.P.(T) No. 897 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 903 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 926 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 927 of 2022 where the levy of service tax on royalty/ DMF is under challenge. As such, interim order dated 02.03.2021 shall govern the case of said writ petitioners also.” Let this matter be listed along with W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 on 19.07.2023. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 2039 of 2023 Azad Ali ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand and others … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner For the State For the CGST & CX --- : Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG II : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate Order No.02 Dated 09th May, 2023 --- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court vide order dated 20.04.2022 passed in a batch of writ petitions led by W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 in the case of M/s Mandhan Minerals Corporation versus Union of India and others has been pleased to grant interim protection from levy of GST on royalty. It is submitted that the issues being common, similar interim protection may be granted to the petitioner pending final adjudication. Learned counsel for the Respondent State of Jharkhand and CGST, both pray for and are allowed three weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Two weeks’ time thereafter is allowed to the learned counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder, if necessary. Since this Court has granted interim protection on the levy of GST on mining lease / royalty to similarly situated petitioners vide order dated 20.04.2022 passed in W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 and other analogous cases, interim protection in the same manner is being granted to the petitioner herein. The operative portion at para 9 of the order dated 20.04.2022 is extracted herein below: “9. Following the interim order passed by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Lakhwinder Singh (supra) dated 04.10.2021, this Court had been pleased to grant interim protection on levy of GST on mining lease / royalty/DMF. In the background of the legal position that royalty has been considered to be a tax or profit pendre and the issue is pending before the 9 Judge Constitution Bench, we are of the considered view that the petitioners have made out a case for interim protection. As such, there shall be stay of recovery of GST for grant of mining lease/ royalty/DMF from the petitioners till further orders. However, the Revenue is not restrained from conducting and completing the assessment proceedings. Since interim protection has been granted earlier in the case of Sunita Ganguly and others Vrs. Union of India & others vide order dated 02.03.2021 passed in W.P.(T) No. 3878 of 2020 and 2. other analogous cases on levy of service tax on royalty/DMF, similar interim protection is being granted in W.P.(T) No. 897 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 903 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 926 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 927 of 2022 where the levy of service tax on royalty/ DMF is under challenge. As such, interim order dated 02.03.2021 shall govern the case of said writ petitioners also.” Let this matter be listed along with W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 on 19.07.2023. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 2040 of 2023 Azad Ali ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand and others … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner For the State For the CGST & CX --- : Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG II : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate Order No.02 Dated 09th May, 2023 --- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court vide order dated 20.04.2022 passed in a batch of writ petitions led by W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 in the case of M/s Mandhan Minerals Corporation versus Union of India and others has been pleased to grant interim protection from levy of GST on royalty. It is submitted that the issues being common, similar interim protection may be granted to the petitioner pending final adjudication. Learned counsel for the Respondent State of Jharkhand and CGST, both pray for and are allowed three weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Two weeks’ time thereafter is allowed to the learned counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder, if necessary. Since this Court has granted interim protection on the levy of GST on mining lease / royalty to similarly situated petitioners vide order dated 20.04.2022 passed in W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 and other analogous cases, interim protection in the same manner is being granted to the petitioner herein. The operative portion at para 9 of the order dated 20.04.2022 is extracted herein below: “9. Following the interim order passed by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Lakhwinder Singh (supra) dated 04.10.2021, this Court had been pleased to grant interim protection on levy of GST on mining lease / royalty/DMF. In the background of the legal position that royalty has been considered to be a tax or profit pendre and the issue is pending before the 9 Judge Constitution Bench, we are of the considered view that the petitioners have made out a case for interim protection. As such, there shall be stay of recovery of GST for grant of mining lease/ royalty/DMF from the petitioners till further orders. However, the Revenue is not restrained from conducting and completing the assessment proceedings. Since interim protection has been granted earlier in the case of Sunita Ganguly and others Vrs. Union of India & others vide order dated 02.03.2021 passed in W.P.(T) No. 3878 of 2020 and 2. other analogous cases on levy of service tax on royalty/DMF, similar interim protection is being granted in W.P.(T) No. 897 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 903 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 926 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 927 of 2022 where the levy of service tax on royalty/ DMF is under challenge. As such, interim order dated 02.03.2021 shall govern the case of said writ petitioners also.” Let this matter be listed along with W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 on 19.07.2023. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 2041 of 2023 Azad Ali ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand and others … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner For the State For the CGST & CX --- : Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG II : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate Order No.02 Dated 09th May, 2023 --- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court vide order dated 20.04.2022 passed in a batch of writ petitions led by W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 in the case of M/s Mandhan Minerals Corporation versus Union of India and others has been pleased to grant interim protection from levy of GST on royalty. It is submitted that the issues being common, similar interim protection may be granted to the petitioner pending final adjudication. Learned counsel for the Respondent State of Jharkhand and CGST, both pray for and are allowed three weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Two weeks’ time thereafter is allowed to the learned counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder, if necessary. Since this Court has granted interim protection on the levy of GST on mining lease / royalty to similarly situated petitioners vide order dated 20.04.2022 passed in W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 and other analogous cases, interim protection in the same manner is being granted to the petitioner herein. The operative portion at para 9 of the order dated 20.04.2022 is extracted herein below: “9. Following the interim order passed by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Lakhwinder Singh (supra) dated 04.10.2021, this Court had been pleased to grant interim protection on levy of GST on mining lease / royalty/DMF. In the background of the legal position that royalty has been considered to be a tax or profit pendre and the issue is pending before the 9 Judge Constitution Bench, we are of the considered view that the petitioners have made out a case for interim protection. As such, there shall be stay of recovery of GST for grant of mining lease/ royalty/DMF from the petitioners till further orders. However, the Revenue is not restrained from conducting and completing the assessment proceedings. Since interim protection has been granted earlier in the case of Sunita Ganguly and others Vrs. Union of India & others vide order dated 02.03.2021 passed in W.P.(T) No. 3878 of 2020 and 2. other analogous cases on levy of service tax on royalty/DMF, similar interim protection is being granted in W.P.(T) No. 897 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 903 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 926 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 927 of 2022 where the levy of service tax on royalty/ DMF is under challenge. As such, interim order dated 02.03.2021 shall govern the case of said writ petitioners also.” Let this matter be listed along with W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 on 19.07.2023. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 2041 of 2023 Azad Ali ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand and others … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner For the State For the CGST & CX --- : Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate : Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Sr. S.C. I : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate Order No.02 Dated 09th May, 2023 --- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court vide order dated 20.04.2022 passed in a batch of writ petitions led by W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 in the case of M/s Mandhan Minerals Corporation versus Union of India and others has been pleased to grant interim protection from levy of GST on royalty. It is submitted that the issues being common, similar interim protection may be granted to the petitioner pending final adjudication. Learned counsel for the Respondent State of Jharkhand and CGST, both pray for and are allowed three weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Two weeks’ time thereafter is allowed to the learned counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder, if necessary. Since this Court has granted interim protection on the levy of GST on mining lease / royalty to similarly situated petitioners vide order dated 20.04.2022 passed in W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 and other analogous cases, interim protection in the same manner is being granted to the petitioner herein. The operative portion at para 9 of the order dated 20.04.2022 is extracted herein below: “9. Following the interim order passed by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Lakhwinder Singh (supra) dated 04.10.2021, this Court had been pleased to grant interim protection on levy of GST on mining lease / royalty/DMF. In the background of the legal position that royalty has been considered to be a tax or profit pendre and the issue is pending before the 9 Judge Constitution Bench, we are of the considered view that the petitioners have made out a case for interim protection. As such, there shall be stay of recovery of GST for grant of mining lease/ royalty/DMF from the petitioners till further orders. However, the Revenue is not restrained from conducting and completing the assessment proceedings. Since interim protection has been granted earlier in the case of Sunita Ganguly and others Vrs. Union of India & others vide order dated 02.03.2021 passed in W.P.(T) No. 3878 of 2020 and 2. other analogous cases on levy of service tax on royalty/DMF, similar interim protection is being granted in W.P.(T) No. 897 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 903 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 926 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 927 of 2022 where the levy of service tax on royalty/ DMF is under challenge. As such, interim order dated 02.03.2021 shall govern the case of said writ petitioners also.” Let this matter be listed along with W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 on 19.07.2023. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 2390 of 2023 Koushal Kishor Singh and Hari Nandan Choudhary ... (A Partnership Firm) Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand and others … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner For the State For the CGST & CX --- : Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate : Mr. Rahul Saboo, GP : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate --- Order No.02 Dated 09th May, 2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court vide order dated 20.04.2022 passed in a batch of writ petitions led by W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 in the case of M/s Mandhan Minerals Corporation versus Union of India and others has been pleased to grant interim protection from levy of GST on royalty. It is submitted that the issues being common, similar interim protection may be granted to the petitioner pending final adjudication. Learned counsel for the Respondent State of Jharkhand and CGST, both pray for and are allowed three weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Two weeks’ time thereafter is allowed to the learned counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder, if necessary. Since this Court has granted interim protection on the levy of GST on mining lease / royalty to similarly situated petitioners vide order dated 20.04.2022 passed in W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 and other analogous cases, interim protection in the same manner is being granted to the petitioner herein. The operative portion at para 9 of the order dated 20.04.2022 is extracted herein below: “9. Following the interim order passed by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Lakhwinder Singh (supra) dated 04.10.2021, this Court had been pleased to grant interim protection on levy of GST on mining lease / royalty/DMF. In the background of the legal position that royalty has been considered to be a tax or profit pendre and the issue is pending before the 9 Judge Constitution Bench, we are of the considered view that the petitioners have made out a case for interim protection. As such, there shall be stay of recovery of GST for grant of mining lease/ royalty/DMF from the petitioners till further orders. However, the Revenue is not restrained from conducting and completing the assessment proceedings. Since interim protection has been granted earlier in the case of Sunita Ganguly and others Vrs. Union of India & others vide order dated 02.03.2021 passed in W.P.(T) No. 3878 of 2020 and 2. other analogous cases on levy of service tax on royalty/DMF, similar interim protection is being granted in W.P.(T) No. 897 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 903 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 926 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 927 of 2022 where the levy of service tax on royalty/ DMF is under challenge. As such, interim order dated 02.03.2021 shall govern the case of said writ petitioners also.” Let this matter be listed along with W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 on 19.07.2023. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No. 136 of 2017 Satish Kumar Lal ... Appellant Smt. Minu Gupta Versus --- … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Appellant For the Resp. : Mr. , Advocate : Mr. D. K. Prasad, Advocate --- Order No. 17 Dated 09th May, 2023 The appellant had accompanied the respondent and had visited his children one of whom seems to be suffering from paralytic attack. However, as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, there was no communication between the appellant and the respondent which further dilutes the chance of any settlement. In such view of the matter, let this matter be listed on 16.05.2023. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No. 156 of 2016 Md. Rustam Alam ... Appellant Versus Gulnaz Parvin … Respondent --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate : Mr. Prashant Kr. Rahul, Advocate --- Order No. 21 Dated 09th May, 2023 A prayer has been made by Mr. Kamdeo Pandey to adjourn this matter for a week as necessary arrangement has been made of the amount of the Rs. 4 Lakh which is to be handed over to the respondents. In view of such submission, by way of last indulgence, let this case be listed on 17.05.2023 under the same heading at the top of the Board. The physical presence of both the parties are dispensed with. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No. 97 of 2022 Mukesh Kumar ... Appellant 1. Mrs. Kumari Puja 2. Devki Nandan Sharma Versus --- … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Appellant For the Respondents : Mr. Prateek Sen, Advocate : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate --- Order No. 07 Dated 09th May, 2023 I.A. No. 4474 of 2023 Heard the learned counsel for the respective sides. This interlocutory application has been preferred by both the parties which is by way of a joint compromise petition. It appears that on 04.05.2023 both the parties were present and they had agreed to a settlement which has now been penned down by way of this interlocutory application. The terms and conditions for the settlement is enumerated at Para-5 of the instant application. It has further been averred in this application that in view of the joint compromise, the F.A. No. 97 of
Decision
2022 be disposed of. On consideration of the averments made in the instant application and since the parties have arrived at a settlement, the terms and conditions of which finds place at Paragraph -5 of the instant application, this interlocutory application stands disposed of and consequently in view of the same F.A. No. 97 of 2022 also stands disposed of. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No. 252 of 2019 Pintu Das 1. Baijanti Devi 2. Lokhan Das Versus --- ... Appellant … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Appellant For the Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Mahatha, Advocate : Ms. Ruchi Mukhi, Advocate --- Order No. 13 Dated 09th May, 2023 The report of the Mediator reveals that the mediation has failed. As such this appeal is admitted for final hearing. Call for the lower court records. Since the respondents have appeared, no notice be issued. List under the heading ‘For Hearing’ on receipt of the lower court records. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No. 27 of 2019 Sarita Kumari ... Appellant Raj Kishore Sharma Versus --- … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate : Ms. Haripriya Kumari, Advocate --- Order No. 06 Dated 09th May, 2023 The report of the Mediator reveals that the matter has been settled between the parties on various terms and conditions as enumerated in the said report. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for respondent that an amount of Rs. 3 Lakhs by way of demand draft has already been deposited before the learned court below, but the appellant is not withdrawing the same. Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel appearing for appellant submits that he has to take instruction with respect to the above and prays for an adjournment. In view of the above, let this matter be listed on 12.06.2023 at the top of the Board. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No. 78 of 2022 Gautam Kalwar @ Gautam Bhagat ... Appellant Anita Devi Versus --- … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Appellant For the Respondent : Ms. Anushka Sharma, Advocate : Mr. Jai Shankar Tiwary, Advocate --- Order No. 09 Dated 09th May, 2023 Mr. Jai Shankar Tiwary, learned counsel appearing for respondent prays for adjournment for two weeks as his client is admitted in the hospital. In view of the above, let this matter be listed on 14.06.2023 under the same heading. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 2002 of 2023 M/s. Sri Ram Construction ... Petitioner Versus The Commissioner, Ranchi South Division, CGST & Central Excise and others … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner For the CGST & CX --- : Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate Order No.03 Dated 09th May, 2023 --- Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the respondents prays for and is allowed four weeks’ time to file a counter affidavit. Let this matter be listed on 22.06.2023. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 6139 of 2022 M/s. Reliable Associates ... Petitioner Versus The Principal Commissioner of CGST & others … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner For the CGST --- : Ms. Sidhi Jalan, Advocate : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate Order No.06 Dated 09th May, 2023 --- As prayed, let this matter be listed on 27.06.2023. In the meantime, both the parties are directed to submit their respective written notes of arguments. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No. 05 of 2023 Arun Charan Dwary ... Appellant Anand Shankar Versus --- … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr. V. K. Tiwary, Advocate : --- Order No. 05 Dated 09th May, 2023 Notice appears to have not been served. Learned counsel appearing for appellant is granted two weeks’ time to serve notice upon the sole respondent in his present and correct address both under registered cover with A.D. as well as by ordinary process for which ten days’ time is granted. Let this matter be listed on 16.06.2023. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 569 of 2023 M/s. Neelam Devi ... Petitioner Versus Joint Commissioner, Officer of the Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise (Appeal0 and another … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner For the CGST : Mr. Master Akash, Advocate : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate --- Order No. 04 Dated 09th May, 2023 Mr. Master Akash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this application. Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the CGST, does not have any objection. Permission is accorded. This writ application is dismissed as withdrawn. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 2399 of 2023 Koushal Kishor Singh and Hari Nandan Choudhary (A Partnership Firm) ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand and others … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner For the State For the CGST & CX --- : Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate : Mr. Rahul Saboo, GP : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate --- Order No.02 Dated 09th May, 2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court vide order dated 20.04.2022 passed in a batch of writ petitions led by W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 in the case of M/s Mandhan Minerals Corporation versus Union of India and others has been pleased to grant interim protection from levy of GST on royalty. It is submitted that the issues being common, similar interim protection may be granted to the petitioner pending final adjudication. Learned counsel for the Respondent State of Jharkhand and CGST, both pray for and are allowed three weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Two weeks’ time thereafter is allowed to the learned counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder, if necessary. Since this Court has granted interim protection on the levy of GST on mining lease / royalty to similarly situated petitioners vide order dated 20.04.2022 passed in W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 and other analogous cases, interim protection in the same manner is being granted to the petitioner herein. The operative portion at para 9 of the order dated 20.04.2022 is extracted herein below: “9. Following the interim order passed by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Lakhwinder Singh (supra) dated 04.10.2021, this Court had been pleased to grant interim protection on levy of GST on mining lease / royalty/DMF. In the background of the legal position that royalty has been considered to be a tax or profit pendre and the issue is pending before the 9 Judge Constitution Bench, we are of the considered view that the petitioners have made out a case for interim protection. As such, there shall be stay of recovery of GST for grant of mining lease/ royalty/DMF from the petitioners till further orders. However, the Revenue is not restrained from conducting and completing the assessment proceedings. Since interim protection has been granted earlier in the case of Sunita Ganguly and others Vrs. Union of India & others vide order dated 02.03.2021 passed in W.P.(T) No. 3878 of 2020 and 2. other analogous cases on levy of service tax on royalty/DMF, similar interim protection is being granted in W.P.(T) No. 897 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 903 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 926 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 927 of 2022 where the levy of service tax on royalty/ DMF is under challenge. As such, interim order dated 02.03.2021 shall govern the case of said writ petitioners also.” Let this matter be listed along with W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 on 19.07.2023. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 2400 of 2023 Manik Chand Maheshwari @ Manick Chand Maehswari (A Partnership Firm) ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand and others … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner For the State For the CGST & CX --- : Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate : Mr. A. K. Yadav, Sr.S.C. I : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate --- Order No.02 Dated 09th May, 2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court vide order dated 20.04.2022 passed in a batch of writ petitions led by W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 in the case of M/s Mandhan Minerals Corporation versus Union of India and others has been pleased to grant interim protection from levy of GST on royalty. It is submitted that the issues being common, similar interim protection may be granted to the petitioner pending final adjudication. Learned counsel for the Respondent State of Jharkhand and CGST, both pray for and are allowed three weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Two weeks’ time thereafter is allowed to the learned counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder, if necessary. Since this Court has granted interim protection on the levy of GST on mining lease / royalty to similarly situated petitioners vide order dated 20.04.2022 passed in W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 and other analogous cases, interim protection in the same manner is being granted to the petitioner herein. The operative portion at para 9 of the order dated 20.04.2022 is extracted herein below: “9. Following the interim order passed by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Lakhwinder Singh (supra) dated 04.10.2021, this Court had been pleased to grant interim protection on levy of GST on mining lease / royalty/DMF. In the background of the legal position that royalty has been considered to be a tax or profit pendre and the issue is pending before the 9 Judge Constitution Bench, we are of the considered view that the petitioners have made out a case for interim protection. As such, there shall be stay of recovery of GST for grant of mining lease/ royalty/DMF from the petitioners till further orders. However, the Revenue is not restrained from conducting and completing the assessment proceedings. Since interim protection has been granted earlier in the case of Sunita Ganguly and others Vrs. Union of India & others vide order dated 02.03.2021 passed in W.P.(T) No. 3878 of 2020 and 2. other analogous cases on levy of service tax on royalty/DMF, similar interim protection is being granted in W.P.(T) No. 897 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 903 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 926 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 927 of 2022 where the levy of service tax on royalty/ DMF is under challenge. As such, interim order dated 02.03.2021 shall govern the case of said writ petitioners also.” Let this matter be listed along with W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 on 19.07.2023. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 2401 of 2023 Koushal Kishor Singh and Hari Nandan Choudhary (A Partnership Firm) ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand and others … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner For the State For the CGST & CX --- : Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate : Mr. Rahul Saboo, GP : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate --- Order No.02 Dated 09th May, 2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court vide order dated 20.04.2022 passed in a batch of writ petitions led by W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 in the case of M/s Mandhan Minerals Corporation versus Union of India and others has been pleased to grant interim protection from levy of GST on royalty. It is submitted that the issues being common, similar interim protection may be granted to the petitioner pending final adjudication. Learned counsel for the Respondent State of Jharkhand and CGST, both pray for and are allowed three weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Two weeks’ time thereafter is allowed to the learned counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder, if necessary. Since this Court has granted interim protection on the levy of GST on mining lease / royalty to similarly situated petitioners vide order dated 20.04.2022 passed in W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 and other analogous cases, interim protection in the same manner is being granted to the petitioner herein. The operative portion at para 9 of the order dated 20.04.2022 is extracted herein below: “9. Following the interim order passed by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Lakhwinder Singh (supra) dated 04.10.2021, this Court had been pleased to grant interim protection on levy of GST on mining lease / royalty/DMF. In the background of the legal position that royalty has been considered to be a tax or profit pendre and the issue is pending before the 9 Judge Constitution Bench, we are of the considered view that the petitioners have made out a case for interim protection. As such, there shall be stay of recovery of GST for grant of mining lease/ royalty/DMF from the petitioners till further orders. However, the Revenue is not restrained from conducting and completing the assessment proceedings. Since interim protection has been granted earlier in the case of Sunita Ganguly and others Vrs. Union of India & others vide order dated 02.03.2021 passed in W.P.(T) No. 3878 of 2020 and 2. other analogous cases on levy of service tax on royalty/DMF, similar interim protection is being granted in W.P.(T) No. 897 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 903 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 926 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 927 of 2022 where the levy of service tax on royalty/ DMF is under challenge. As such, interim order dated 02.03.2021 shall govern the case of said writ petitioners also.” Let this matter be listed along with W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 on 19.07.2023. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 2402 of 2023 M/s. BBA Stone Works through its Proprietor Binit Kumar Gupta Versus ... Petitioner The State of Jharkhand and others … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner For the State For the CGST & CX --- : Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate : Mr. Sachin Kuimar, AAG II : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate --- Order No.02 Dated 09th May, 2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court vide order dated 20.04.2022 passed in a batch of writ petitions led by W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 in the case of M/s Mandhan Minerals Corporation versus Union of India and others has been pleased to grant interim protection from levy of GST on royalty. It is submitted that the issues being common, similar interim protection may be granted to the petitioner pending final adjudication. Learned counsel for the Respondent State of Jharkhand and CGST, both pray for and are allowed three weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Two weeks’ time thereafter is allowed to the learned counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder, if necessary. Since this Court has granted interim protection on the levy of GST on mining lease / royalty to similarly situated petitioners vide order dated 20.04.2022 passed in W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 and other analogous cases, interim protection in the same manner is being granted to the petitioner herein. The operative portion at para 9 of the order dated 20.04.2022 is extracted herein below: “9. Following the interim order passed by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Lakhwinder Singh (supra) dated 04.10.2021, this Court had been pleased to grant interim protection on levy of GST on mining lease / royalty/DMF. In the background of the legal position that royalty has been considered to be a tax or profit pendre and the issue is pending before the 9 Judge Constitution Bench, we are of the considered view that the petitioners have made out a case for interim protection. As such, there shall be stay of recovery of GST for grant of mining lease/ royalty/DMF from the petitioners till further orders. However, the Revenue is not restrained from conducting and completing the assessment proceedings. Since interim protection has been granted earlier in the case of Sunita Ganguly and others Vrs. Union of India & others vide order dated 02.03.2021 passed in W.P.(T) No. 3878 of 2020 and 2. other analogous cases on levy of service tax on royalty/DMF, similar interim protection is being granted in W.P.(T) No. 897 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 903 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 926 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 927 of 2022 where the levy of service tax on royalty/ DMF is under challenge. As such, interim order dated 02.03.2021 shall govern the case of said writ petitioners also.” Let this matter be listed along with W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 on 19.07.2023. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 2424 of 2023 M/s. Lakhinarayan Stone Works through its Partner Ashok Kumar Versus ... Petitioner The State of Jharkhand and others … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner For the State For the CGST & CX --- : Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate : Mr. Sachin Kuimar, AAG II : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate --- Order No.02 Dated 09th May, 2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court vide order dated 20.04.2022 passed in a batch of writ petitions led by W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 in the case of M/s Mandhan Minerals Corporation versus Union of India and others has been pleased to grant interim protection from levy of GST on royalty. It is submitted that the issues being common, similar interim protection may be granted to the petitioner pending final adjudication. Learned counsel for the Respondent State of Jharkhand and CGST, both pray for and are allowed three weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Two weeks’ time thereafter is allowed to the learned counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder, if necessary. Since this Court has granted interim protection on the levy of GST on mining lease / royalty to similarly situated petitioners vide order dated 20.04.2022 passed in W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 and other analogous cases, interim protection in the same manner is being granted to the petitioner herein. The operative portion at para 9 of the order dated 20.04.2022 is extracted herein below: “9. Following the interim order passed by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Lakhwinder Singh (supra) dated 04.10.2021, this Court had been pleased to grant interim protection on levy of GST on mining lease / royalty/DMF. In the background of the legal position that royalty has been considered to be a tax or profit pendre and the issue is pending before the 9 Judge Constitution Bench, we are of the considered view that the petitioners have made out a case for interim protection. As such, there shall be stay of recovery of GST for grant of mining lease/ royalty/DMF from the petitioners till further orders. However, the Revenue is not restrained from conducting and completing the assessment proceedings. Since interim protection has been granted earlier in the case of Sunita Ganguly and others Vrs. Union of India & others vide order dated 02.03.2021 passed in W.P.(T) No. 3878 of 2020 and 2. other analogous cases on levy of service tax on royalty/DMF, similar interim protection is being granted in W.P.(T) No. 897 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 903 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 926 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 927 of 2022 where the levy of service tax on royalty/ DMF is under challenge. As such, interim order dated 02.03.2021 shall govern the case of said writ petitioners also.” Let this matter be listed along with W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 on 19.07.2023. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 2401 of 2023 Koushal Kishor Singh and Hari Nandan Choudhary (A Partnership Firm) ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand and others … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner For the State For the CGST & CX --- : Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG II : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate --- Order No.02 Dated 09th May, 2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court vide order dated 20.04.2022 passed in a batch of writ petitions led by W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 in the case of M/s Mandhan Minerals Corporation versus Union of India and others has been pleased to grant interim protection from levy of GST on royalty. It is submitted that the issues being common, similar interim protection may be granted to the petitioner pending final adjudication. Learned counsel for the Respondent State of Jharkhand and CGST, both pray for and are allowed three weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Two weeks’ time thereafter is allowed to the learned counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder, if necessary. Since this Court has granted interim protection on the levy of GST on mining lease / royalty to similarly situated petitioners vide order dated 20.04.2022 passed in W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 and other analogous cases, interim protection in the same manner is being granted to the petitioner herein. The operative portion at para 9 of the order dated 20.04.2022 is extracted herein below: “9. Following the interim order passed by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Lakhwinder Singh (supra) dated 04.10.2021, this Court had been pleased to grant interim protection on levy of GST on mining lease / royalty/DMF. In the background of the legal position that royalty has been considered to be a tax or profit pendre and the issue is pending before the 9 Judge Constitution Bench, we are of the considered view that the petitioners have made out a case for interim protection. As such, there shall be stay of recovery of GST for grant of mining lease/ royalty/DMF from the petitioners till further orders. However, the Revenue is not restrained from conducting and completing the assessment proceedings. Since interim protection has been granted earlier in the case of Sunita Ganguly and others Vrs. Union of India & others vide order dated 02.03.2021 passed in W.P.(T) No. 3878 of 2020 and 2. other analogous cases on levy of service tax on royalty/DMF, similar interim protection is being granted in W.P.(T) No. 897 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 903 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 926 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 927 of 2022 where the levy of service tax on royalty/ DMF is under challenge. As such, interim order dated 02.03.2021 shall govern the case of said writ petitioners also.” Let this matter be listed along with W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 on 19.07.2023. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 2427 of 2023 Manik Chand Maheshwari @ Manick Chand Maehswari (A Partnership Firm) ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand and others … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner For the State For the CGST & CX --- : Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate : Mr. A. K. Yadav, Sr. S.C. I : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate --- Order No.02 Dated 09th May, 2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court vide order dated 20.04.2022 passed in a batch of writ petitions led by W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 in the case of M/s Mandhan Minerals Corporation versus Union of India and others has been pleased to grant interim protection from levy of GST on royalty. It is submitted that the issues being common, similar interim protection may be granted to the petitioner pending final adjudication. Learned counsel for the Respondent State of Jharkhand and CGST, both pray for and are allowed three weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Two weeks’ time thereafter is allowed to the learned counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder, if necessary. Since this Court has granted interim protection on the levy of GST on mining lease / royalty to similarly situated petitioners vide order dated 20.04.2022 passed in W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 and other analogous cases, interim protection in the same manner is being granted to the petitioner herein. The operative portion at para 9 of the order dated 20.04.2022 is extracted herein below: “9. Following the interim order passed by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Lakhwinder Singh (supra) dated 04.10.2021, this Court had been pleased to grant interim protection on levy of GST on mining lease / royalty/DMF. In the background of the legal position that royalty has been considered to be a tax or profit pendre and the issue is pending before the 9 Judge Constitution Bench, we are of the considered view that the petitioners have made out a case for interim protection. As such, there shall be stay of recovery of GST for grant of mining lease/ royalty/DMF from the petitioners till further orders. However, the Revenue is not restrained from conducting and completing the assessment proceedings. Since interim protection has been granted earlier in the case of Sunita Ganguly and others Vrs. Union of India & others vide order dated 02.03.2021 passed in W.P.(T) No. 3878 of 2020 and 2. other analogous cases on levy of service tax on royalty/DMF, similar interim protection is being granted in W.P.(T) No. 897 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 903 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 926 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 927 of 2022 where the levy of service tax on royalty/ DMF is under challenge. As such, interim order dated 02.03.2021 shall govern the case of said writ petitioners also.” Let this matter be listed along with W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 on 19.07.2023. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 2428 of 2023 Manik Chand Maheshwari @ Manick Chand Maehswari (A Partnership Firm) ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand and others … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner For the State For the CGST & CX --- : Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate : Mr. A. K. Yadav, Sr. S.C. I : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate --- Order No.02 Dated 09th May, 2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court vide order dated 20.04.2022 passed in a batch of writ petitions led by W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 in the case of M/s Mandhan Minerals Corporation versus Union of India and others has been pleased to grant interim protection from levy of GST on royalty. It is submitted that the issues being common, similar interim protection may be granted to the petitioner pending final adjudication. Learned counsel for the Respondent State of Jharkhand and CGST, both pray for and are allowed three weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Two weeks’ time thereafter is allowed to the learned counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder, if necessary. Since this Court has granted interim protection on the levy of GST on mining lease / royalty to similarly situated petitioners vide order dated 20.04.2022 passed in W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 and other analogous cases, interim protection in the same manner is being granted to the petitioner herein. The operative portion at para 9 of the order dated 20.04.2022 is extracted herein below: “9. Following the interim order passed by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Lakhwinder Singh (supra) dated 04.10.2021, this Court had been pleased to grant interim protection on levy of GST on mining lease / royalty/DMF. In the background of the legal position that royalty has been considered to be a tax or profit pendre and the issue is pending before the 9 Judge Constitution Bench, we are of the considered view that the petitioners have made out a case for interim protection. As such, there shall be stay of recovery of GST for grant of mining lease/ royalty/DMF from the petitioners till further orders. However, the Revenue is not restrained from conducting and completing the assessment proceedings. Since interim protection has been granted earlier in the case of Sunita Ganguly and others Vrs. Union of India & others vide order dated 02.03.2021 passed in W.P.(T) No. 3878 of 2020 and 2. other analogous cases on levy of service tax on royalty/DMF, similar interim protection is being granted in W.P.(T) No. 897 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 903 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 926 of 2022, W.P.(T) No. 927 of 2022 where the levy of service tax on royalty/ DMF is under challenge. As such, interim order dated 02.03.2021 shall govern the case of said writ petitioners also.” Let this matter be listed along with W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 on 19.07.2023. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.) MK