Mukesh Kumar Vs Mrs Kumari Puja

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

¶13

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashok Kr. Yadav, Sr.S.C. I For the CGST & CX : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate ---

¶14

Order No.02 Dated 09^th May, 2023

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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:

¶18

“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.

¶19

¶20

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.”

¶21

Let this matter be listed along with W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 on 19.07.2023.

¶22

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶23

(DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.)

¶24

MK

¶25

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

¶26

Versus The State of Jharkhand and others … Respondents ---

¶27

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶28

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashok Kr. Yadav, Sr.S.C. I For the CGST & CX : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate ---

¶29

Order No.02 Dated 09^th May, 2023

¶30

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.

¶31

The same is accepted and accordingly defect No. 4 is ignored in view of the said affidavit.

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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:

¶35

“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

¶36

¶37

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.

¶38

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.”

¶39

Let this matter be listed along with W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 on 19.07.2023.

¶40

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶41

(DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.)

¶42

MK

¶43

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

¶44

--CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶45

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG II For the CGST & CX : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate ---

¶46

Order No.02 Dated 09^th May, 2023

¶47

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.

¶48

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.

¶49

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:

¶50

“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.

¶51

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

¶52

¶53

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.”

¶54

Let this matter be listed along with W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 on 19.07.2023.

¶55

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶56

(DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.)

¶57

MK

¶58

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 2039 of 2023

¶59

Azad Ali ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand and others … Respondents

¶60

¶61

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶62

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG II For the CGST & CX : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate ---

¶63

Order No.02 Dated 09^th May, 2023

¶64

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.

¶65

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.

¶66

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:

¶67

“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.

¶68

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

¶69

¶70

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.”

¶71

Let this matter be listed along with W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 on 19.07.2023.

¶72

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶73

(DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.)

¶74

MK

¶75

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 2040 of 2023

¶76

Azad Ali ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand and others … Respondents

¶77

¶78

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶79

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG II For the CGST & CX : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate ---

¶80

Order No.02 Dated 09^th May, 2023

¶81

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.

¶82

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.

¶83

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:

¶84

“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.

¶85

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

¶86

¶87

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.”

¶88

Let this matter be listed along with W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 on 19.07.2023.

¶89

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶90

(DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.)

¶91

MK

¶92

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 2041 of 2023

¶93

Azad Ali ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand and others … Respondents

¶94

¶95

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶96

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG II For the CGST & CX : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate ---

¶97

Order No.02 Dated 09^th May, 2023

¶98

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.

¶99

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.

¶100

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:

¶101

“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.

¶102

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

¶103

¶104

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.”

¶105

Let this matter be listed along with W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 on 19.07.2023.

¶106

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶107

(DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.)

¶108

MK

¶109

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 2041 of 2023

¶110

Azad Ali ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand and others … Respondents

¶111

¶112

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶113

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Sr. S.C. I For the CGST & CX : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate

¶114

¶115

Order No.02 Dated 09^th May, 2023

¶116

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.

¶117

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.

¶118

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:

¶119

“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.

¶120

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

¶121

¶122

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.”

¶123

Let this matter be listed along with W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 on 19.07.2023.

¶124

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶125

(DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.)

¶126

MK

¶127

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 2390 of 2023

¶128

Koushal Kishor Singh and Hari Nandan Choudhary (A Partnership Firm) ... Petitioner

¶129

Versus The State of Jharkhand and others … Respondents ---

¶130

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶131

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rahul Saboo, GP For the CGST & CX : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate ---

¶132

Order No.02 Dated 09^th May, 2023

¶133

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.

¶134

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.

¶135

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:

¶136

“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.

¶137

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

¶138

¶139

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.”

¶140

Let this matter be listed along with W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 on 19.07.2023.

¶141

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶142

(DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.)

¶143

MK

¶144

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

F.A. No. 136 of 2017

Versus

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶149

For the Appellant : Mr. , Advocate For the Resp. : Mr. D. K. Prasad, Advocate ---

¶150

Order No. 17 Dated 09^th May, 2023

¶151

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.

¶152

In such view of the matter, let this matter be listed on 16.05.2023.

¶153

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶154

(DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.)

¶155

MK

¶156

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No. 156 of 2016

¶157

Md. Rustam Alam

¶158

Gulnaz Parvin … Respondent ---

¶159

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶160

For the Appellant : Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Prashant Kr. Rahul, Advocate ---

¶161

Order No. 21 Dated 09^th May, 2023

¶162

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.

¶163

In view of such submission, by way of last indulgence, let this case be

¶164

listed on 17.05.2023 under the same heading at the top of the Board.

¶165

The physical presence of both the parties are dispensed with.

¶166

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶167

(DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.)

¶168

MK

¶169

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶170

F.A. No. 97 of 2022

¶171

Mukesh Kumar ... Appellant

¶172

Versus

¶173

Mrs. Kumari Puja

¶174

Devki Nandan Sharma … Respondents ---

¶175

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶176

For the Appellant : Mr. Prateek Sen, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate

¶177

¶178

Order No. 07 Dated 09^th May, 2023

¶179

I.A. No. 4474 of 2023

¶180

Heard the learned counsel for the respective sides.

¶181

This interlocutory application has been preferred by both the parties

¶182

which is by way of a joint compromise petition.

¶183

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 2022 be disposed of.

¶184

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.

¶185

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶186

(DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.)

¶187

MK

¶188

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶189

F.A. No. 252 of 2019

¶190

Pintu Das ... Appellant

¶191

Versus

¶192

Baijanti Devi 2. Lokhan Das … Respondents

¶193

¶194

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶195

For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Mahatha, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. Ruchi Mukhi, Advocate

¶196

¶197

Order No. 13 Dated 09^th May, 2023

¶198

The report of the Mediator reveals that the mediation has failed.

¶199

As such this appeal is admitted for final hearing.

¶200

Call for the lower court records.

¶201

Since the respondents have appeared, no notice be issued.

¶202

List under the heading ‘For Hearing’ on receipt of the lower court records.

¶203

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶204

(DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.)

¶205

MK

¶206

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶207

F.A. No. 27 of 2019

¶208

Sarita Kumari ... Appellant

¶209

Versus

¶210

… Raj Kishore Sharma Respondent

¶211

¶212

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶213

For the Appellant : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Haripriya Kumari, Advocate ---

¶214

Order No. 06 Dated 09^th May, 2023

¶215

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.

¶216

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.

¶217

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.

¶218

In view of the above, let this matter be listed on 12.06.2023 at the top of the Board.

¶219

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶220

(DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.)

¶221

MK

¶222

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶223

F.A. No. 78 of 2022

¶224

... Gautam Kalwar @ Gautam Bhagat Appellant Versus

¶225

Anita Devi … Respondent

¶226

¶227

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶228

For the Appellant : Ms. Anushka Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Jai Shankar Tiwary, Advocate ---

¶229

Order No. 09 Dated 09^th May, 2023

¶230

Mr. Jai Shankar Tiwary, learned counsel appearing for respondent prays for adjournment for two weeks as his client is admitted in the hospital.

¶231

In view of the above, let this matter be listed on 14.06.2023 under the same heading.

¶232

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶233

(DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.)

¶234

MK

¶235

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 2002 of 2023 M/s. Sri Ram Construction ... Petitioner

¶236

Versus

¶237

The Commissioner, Ranchi South Division, CGST & Central Excise and others … Respondents

¶238

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶239

¶240

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate For the CGST & CX : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate

¶241

¶242

Order No.03 Dated 09^th May, 2023

¶243

Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the respondents prays

¶244

for and is allowed four weeks’ time to file a counter affidavit.

¶245

Let this matter be listed on 22.06.2023.

¶246

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶247

(DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.)

¶248

MK

¶249

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 6139 of 2022 M/s. Reliable Associates ... Petitioner

¶250

Versus

¶251

The Principal Commissioner of CGST & others

¶252

… Respondents

¶253

¶254

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶255

--For the Petitioner : Ms. Sidhi Jalan, Advocate For the CGST : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate

¶256

¶257

Order No.06 Dated 09^th May, 2023

¶258

As prayed, let this matter be listed on 27.06.2023.

¶259

In the meantime, both the parties are directed to submit their respective written notes of arguments.

¶260

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶261

(DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.)

¶262

MK

¶263

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶264

F.A. No. 05 of 2023

¶265

Versus

¶266

Anand Shankar … Respondent

¶267

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶268

For the Appellant : Mr. V. K. Tiwary, Advocate : For the Respondent

¶269

Order No. 05 Dated 09^th May, 2023

¶270

Notice appears to have not been served.

¶271

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.

¶272

Let this matter be listed on 16.06.2023.

¶273

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶274

(DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.)

¶275

MK

¶276

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 569 of 2023

¶277

M/s. Neelam Devi ... Petitioner

¶278

Versus

¶279

Joint Commissioner, Officer of the Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise (Appeal0 and another

¶280

… Respondents

¶281

¶282

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶283

For the Petitioner : Mr. Master Akash, Advocate For the CGST : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate ---

¶284

Order No. 04 Dated 09^th May, 2023

¶285

Mr. Master Akash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this application.

¶286

Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the CGST, does not have any objection.

¶287

Permission is accorded.

¶288

This writ application is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶289

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶290

(DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.)

¶291

MK

¶292

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 2399 of 2023

¶293

Koushal Kishor Singh and Hari Nandan Choudhary (A Partnership Firm) ... Petitioner

¶294

Versus The State of Jharkhand and others … Respondents ---

¶295

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶296

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rahul Saboo, GP For the CGST & CX : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate ---

¶297

Order No.02 Dated 09^th May, 2023

¶298

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.

¶299

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.

¶300

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:

¶301

“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.

¶302

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

¶303

¶304

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.”

¶305

Let this matter be listed along with W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 on 19.07.2023.

¶306

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶307

(DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.)

¶308

MK

¶309

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

¶310

Versus The State of Jharkhand and others … Respondents ---

¶311

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶312

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate For the State : Mr. A. K. Yadav, Sr.S.C. I For the CGST & CX : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate ---

¶313

Order No.02 Dated 09^th May, 2023

¶314

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.

¶315

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.

¶316

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:

¶317

“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.

¶318

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

¶319

¶320

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.”

¶321

Let this matter be listed along with W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 on 19.07.2023.

¶322

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶323

(DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.)

¶324

MK

¶325

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

¶326

Versus The State of Jharkhand and others … Respondents ---

¶327

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶328

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rahul Saboo, GP For the CGST & CX : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate ---

¶329

Order No.02 Dated 09^th May, 2023

¶330

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.

¶331

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.

¶332

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:

¶333

“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.

¶334

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

¶335

¶336

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.”

¶337

Let this matter be listed along with W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 on 19.07.2023.

¶338

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶339

(DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.)

¶340

MK

¶341

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

¶342

... Petitioner

¶343

Versus The State of Jharkhand and others … Respondents ---

¶344

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶345

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sachin Kuimar, AAG II For the CGST & CX : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate --- Order No.02 Dated 09^th May, 2023

¶346

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.

¶347

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.

¶348

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:

¶349

“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.

¶350

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

¶351

¶352

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.”

¶353

Let this matter be listed along with W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 on 19.07.2023.

¶354

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶355

(DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.)

¶356

MK

¶357

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

¶358

... Petitioner

¶359

Versus The State of Jharkhand and others … Respondents ---

¶360

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶361

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sachin Kuimar, AAG II For the CGST & CX : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate --- Order No.02 Dated 09^th May, 2023

¶362

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.

¶363

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.

¶364

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:

¶365

“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.

¶366

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

¶367

¶368

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.”

¶369

Let this matter be listed along with W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 on 19.07.2023.

¶370

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶371

(DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.)

¶372

MK

¶373

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

¶374

Versus The State of Jharkhand and others … Respondents ---

¶375

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶376

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG II For the CGST & CX : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate ---

¶377

Order No.02 Dated 09^th May, 2023

¶378

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.

¶379

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.

¶380

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:

¶381

“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.

¶382

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

¶383

¶384

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.”

¶385

Let this matter be listed along with W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 on 19.07.2023.

¶386

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶387

(DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.)

¶388

MK

¶389

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

¶390

Versus The State of Jharkhand and others … Respondents ---

¶391

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶392

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate For the State : Mr. A. K. Yadav, Sr. S.C. I For the CGST & CX : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate ---

¶393

Order No.02 Dated 09^th May, 2023

¶394

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.

¶395

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.

¶396

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:

¶397

“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.

¶398

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

¶399

¶400

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.”

¶401

Let this matter be listed along with W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 on 19.07.2023.

¶402

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶403

(DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.)

¶404

MK

¶405

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

¶406

Versus The State of Jharkhand and others … Respondents ---

¶407

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶408

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate For the State : Mr. A. K. Yadav, Sr. S.C. I For the CGST & CX : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate ---

¶409

Order No.02 Dated 09^th May, 2023

¶410

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.

¶411

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.

¶412

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:

¶413

“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.

¶414

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

¶415

¶416

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.”

¶417

Let this matter be listed along with W.P.(T) No. 432 of 2021 on 19.07.2023.

¶418

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶419

(DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.)

¶420

MK

Mukesh Kumar v. Mrs Kumari Puja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar v. Mrs Kumari Puja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Labour and Employment Vs Jharkhand Vikash Shramik Sangh through Its President Shri Naresh Prasad Singh

Chanakya Bnr Hotel through Its Director Mr Vinayak Kocchar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Cum Commissioner Commercial Taxes Deptt

Reema Devi Vs Amit Kumar

M/S Neelam Devi Vs Joint Commissioner Office of the Commissioner Cgst and Central Excise (Appeal)

Ms the Tinplate Company of India Limited through Its Deputy Manager Namely Banku Bihari Bag Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Commercial Taxes

Ms Tata Motors Limited through Its Assistant General Manager Cum Authorized Signatory Dhanu Kumar Vs Comercial Taxes