Allowed

M/s.Evershine Granites Exports v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Jul 2024WP/1319/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a memo demanding seigniorage fee, penalty, DMF and MERIT amounts from a granite exporter. The petitioner submitted that the matter was covered by an earlier order dated 07.12.2023 in W.P.No.1322 of 2023, which the Government Pleader did not refute. Following that order, the writ petition was allowed without costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/s.Evershine Granites Exports Vs State… — Mining and Natural Resources | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 1319 OF 2023

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/s.Evershine Granites Exports, Rep. by its Managing Partner Sri Munavar Basha Aged bout 56 years,

¶8

Lakshmipuram Village, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District

¶9

517 425. ...Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary ndustries and Commerce Department, Secretariat Buildings

¶12

Velagapudi, Guntur District. ’

¶13

Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District.

¶14

Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh Chittoor.

¶15

Assistant Director of Minesand Geology, Palamaneru, Chittoor District.

¶16

...Respondents

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo No.1974/M.l(1)/202 2, dated 16-12-2022 issued by the 1st Respondent in so far as it relates to imposing of penalty against the Petitioner for an amount of Rs.1,49,349/towards normal seigniorage fee. Rs.1,49,349/towards penalty, Rs.18.669/- towards DMF and Rs.2,987/- towards MERIT as wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and without jurisdiction and consequently declare that the petitioner is not

¶18

entitled for payment of any amount as demanded in the revisional proceedings.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶20

.-■ • Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in^{thecircumstances}

¶21

„ • stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Memo No. 1974/M. 1(1)/2022, dated 16-12-2022 issued by the 1st Respondent.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KIRTHI TEJA KONDAVEETI

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE

¶24

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶25

¶26

APHC010026542023

¶27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶28

[3310]

¶29

MONDAY .THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶30

PRESENT

¶31

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO: 1319/2023

¶33

Between:

¶34

M/s.evershine Granites Exports ...PETITIONER

¶35

AND

¶36

State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶37

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶38

1.KIRTH1 TEJA KONDAVEETl

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶40

1.GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE

¶41

The Court made the following:

¶42

¶43

ORDER:

¶44

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶45

seeking the following relief;

¶46

" declaring the Memo No.1974/M.1(1)/2022, dated 16.12.2022 issued by the 1^' Respondent in so far as it relates^{toimposingofpenalty} against the Petitioner for an amount of Rs.1,49,349/towards normal seigniorage fee, Rs.1,49,349/- towards penalty, Rs.^{18,669/-towardsDMF} and Rs.2,987/- towards MERIT as wholly illegal, arbitrary^and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and without jurisdiction and consequently declare that the petitioner is not entitled^{forpaymentofany} amount as demanded in the revisional proceedings and pass such other and further order or orders "

¶47

¶48

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, appearing for the respondents 1 to 4.

¶49

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the subject^matterofthis Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order dated 07.12.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.1322 of 2023.

¶50

Learned Government Pleader does not refute the said submission.

¶51

Follo\A/ing the same, this Writ Petition is also allowed in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.1322 of 2023, dated 07.12.2023. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶52

Registry is directed to attach a copy of the order^{dated07.12.2023} passed in W.P.No.1322 of 2023, to this order.

¶53

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

To,

//TRUE COPY//

Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTIO^FFICER

¶58

The Managing Partner, M/s. Evershine Granites Exports,^SriGhazanfer Basha, S/o. Munavar Basha, Aged about 56 years, Sy.No. 76/5A Lakshmipuram Village, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District - 517425

¶59

One CC to SRI KIRTHI TEJA KONDAVEETI Advocate [OPUC]

¶60

Two CCS to GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE, High Court^ofAndhra Pradesh [OUT]

¶61

Three CD Copies

¶62

(Along with Copy of Order dated 07.12.2023 in WP. No. 1322 of 2023)

HIGH COURT

DR.KMR,J

DATED:15/07/2024

ORDER

ng 1 / JAN 2025 1
WP.No.1319 of 2023 Co
Current Section . ^

¶69

ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶70

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶71

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶72

WRIT PETITION No. 1322 of 2023

¶73

M/s. Monumental Memorials (100%E.O.U) rep. by its Managing Partner, Sri Ghazanfer Basha, S/o. Munavar Basha, Aged about 56 years, R/o.Sy.No.71/1 & 2, Dravida University Road, Lakshmipuram Village, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District-517 425.

¶74

Petitioner

¶75

Versus State of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary, Industries & Commerce Dept., Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶76

..Respondents

¶77

ORDER:

¶78

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology for the respondents 2. This writ petition is filed questioning the memo No.l597/M-I(l)/2022 dated 16.12.2022 of the pt respondent in directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.l 1,35,139/towards normal seigniorage fee, Rs.11,35,139/towards penalty and an amount of Rs. 1,41,892/- towards DMF^and Rs.22,703/towards merit while allowing the revision application of the petitioner.

¶79

¶80

¶81

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that^the petitioner was issued show cause notice dated 05.03.2021 by the 3>'d respondent giving 15 days time from the date of receipt of the said show cause notice to submit the explanation along with the power consumption, E-way bills, invoices copies and dispatch particulars for the past two years and copy of the MDR registration along with the recorded evidence for the above quantity if any as^mentioned in the impugned show cause notice dated 05.03.2021. In pursuance of the said show cause notice dated 05.03.2021 of the 3‘'d respondent, the petitioner submitted its explanation dated 22.03.2021 stating that, it has been submitting^the discharge particulars along with bills to the concerned Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Palamaner from time to time and they are not transporting the rough granite blocks without payment of seigniorage fee and they^arealso not transporting the finished products from their factory without obtaining mining passes. Thus, it submitted^allthe required particulars to the concerned authority and sought for dropping of further action pursuant to the above said show cause notice. Without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 3''^ respondent issued

¶82

¶83

demand notice dated 24.02.2022 stating that the petitioner^is required to pay a sum of Rs.75,42,999/- within 15 days^from the date of receipt of the said demand notice. Aggrieved by the said demand notice dated 24.02.2022 of the 3''^ respondent, the petitioner filed revisional application^before the respondent and without appreciating the material available on record, the 1®^ respondent passed the^abovesaid impugned memo dated 16.12.2022 directing the petitioner^to pay a sum of Rs. 11,35,139/- towards normal seigniorage^fee. Rs.l 1,35,139/towards penalty and an amount of Rs. 1,41,892/- towards DMF and Rs.22,703/- towards^merit by waving of the remaining portion of the demand notice observing that, by taking into consideration of the grounds of revision petitioner, their financial problems and for running of the industry, it is decided to reduce the penalty^amounton sympathetic grounds. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that^the l®t respondent miserably failed in appreciating the letter addressed by the 4th respondent with respect to the stock available vide MDLOl 11002883 as on 30.11.2020 in a quantity of 871.760 cubic meters. Had it been taken into consideration, the 1®^ respondent ought not to have levied

¶84

¶85

¶86

any payment of normal seigniorage fee and penalty thereon. Unless, the normal seigniorage fee is paid in time, the records will not be updated with the particulars of the stock as mentioned in the 4th respondent’s letter dated 07.06.2022. The quantities mentioned in the said letter ought to have been examined in the demand notice and as well as in the final orders passed in the revision application.

¶87

To summarise this argument, he submits that, there^is no coherence between the show cause notice and the demand notice issued and the respondent authorities have not applied their mind while imposing the above said penalties and other charges.

¶88

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology relying upon the counter affidavit of the 4th respondent submits that, the inspection report of the technical team was forwarded by the 4th respondent to the respondent vide letter dated 25.02.2021 (copy not available) for taking further necessary action^inthe matter. As per the inspection reports of the technical team, the quantity of 235.024 Cbm of Black Granite Rough Blocks, 330.056 Cbm of colour Granite Rough Blocks, 33.998 Cbm^of Colour Granite finished slabs are available with the factory

¶89

¶90

site/unit premises of the petitioner and the petitioner^was requested to furnish the documentary evidence in token of payment of seigniorage fee for the above said quantities. 7. Due to non-submission of the same, the respondent authorities issued the show cause notice and demand notice and there upon the revision of the petitioner was disposed^of as stated above.

¶91

In view of the above said submissions made on both the sides and upon consideration of the material available on record, it is to be seen that the show cause notice^ofthe 3''^ respondent dated 05.03.2021 speaks about the procurement of the documentary evidence in payment of seigniorage^feefor the quantity of 235.024 Cbm of Black Granite Rough Blocks, 330.056 Cbm of colour Granite Rough Blocks, 33.998^Cbmof Colour Granite finished slabs and the petitioner was only directed to submit the power consumption. E-way bills. copies of invoices and dispatch particulars for the past two years and copy of the MDR registration along with the recorded evidence for the above quantity if any. For which. 15 days time was given for the petitioner to submit its explanation along with the above said documents pursuant to the above said show cause notice dated 05.03.2021. It

¶92

¶93

also refers to the Rule 26 (3) (ii) of the Andhra Pradesh^Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, which reads as under:

¶94

if no documentary proof is produced in token of having paid the Mineral Revenue to the Government, by any person who used or consumed or in possession of any mineral including the processed mineral, he shall be^liable to pay five times of normal Seigniorage fee as penalty in addition to the normal Seigniorage fee along with DMF^and MERIT amounts for the said quantity”.

¶95

On reading of the above said show cause notice it is clear that, the petitioner has procured the documentary proof as in token of payment of seigniorage fee for the quantities mentioned therein. The petitioner also clarified in its explanation dated 22.03.2021 about the submission of^allthe documents necessary for the said show cause notice and sought for dropping of further action in the said matter. But in the demand notice of the 3^^ respondent dated 24.02.2022, it was mentioned that, the 4^^ respondent in its report noticed that, the above said quantities of different^varietiesof the granite in the unit premises were lying for furnishing^all the documentary evidence in token of payment of seigniorage fee for the above said quantity. For which, as if the^show

¶96

¶97

cause notice was issued dated 05.03.2021, was referred in the said demand notice and consequently the petitioner^was made liable as a consequential act under Rule 26 (3)(ii)^ofthe Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966^and Rule 8 of APMDR, 2017 as mentioned in the table given in the demand notice dated 24.02.2022. None of the proceedings of the respondent authorities refer about the letter of the 4th respondent dated 07.06.2022 in respect^ofthe quantities of stock available as on 30.11.2020 in the petitioner’s unit. Which otherwise indicates payment of normal seigniorage fee in respect of the above said quantities. The l®t respondent revisional authority though reduced^the normal seigniorage fee and penalty from that of the^demand notice issued, did not consider the scope of show cause notice and the enlargement of scope of demand notice deviating from the allegations shown in the show cause notice. While considering the allowing of the revision application by reducing the payments towards various charges like normal seigniorage fee and other penalty etc.. the 1st respondent ought to have made an observation that. the demand notice has traversed beyond the scope of^the show cause notice as it was only relating to the production^of

¶98

¶99

power consumption, E-way bills, invoices copies and dispatch

¶100

particulars in the past two years and copy of the MDR registration along with the recorded evidence as per the above said quantity if any. 10. Since the petitioner paid normal seigniorage fee for^the above said quantities even as per the letter of the 4th respondent dated 07.06.2022, the order under revision is sustainable and accordingly it is set aside.

¶101

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶102

As a sequel. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any. shall stand closed.

¶103

JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶104

07.12.2023 PGT

M/s.Evershine Granites Exports v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/s.Evershine Granites Exports v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G v Subba Rao Vs the State of Ap

G. Krishna Kumari, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Tota Venkateswar Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Paramananda Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Evershine Monuments Vs the State of Ap

Konuru Jeevana Sandhya Mutually Aided Co- Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh