SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(AP) 68

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 
K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Sri Sai Prabha Granites - Appellant 
Vs.
State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others - Respondent 
WRIT PETITION NO: 27693, 15066 and 22303/2016
Decided On : 13-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : N SHOBA
For the Respondent: GP FOR HOME (AP), GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP), GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE (AP)

The court ruled that processed minerals do not attract seigniorage fees under current laws, deeming the demand notices illegal.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 - Demand notices issued against finished products for seigniorage fees deemed arbitrary and illegal - The court held that the processed minerals do not attract seigniorage fees as per the current legal framework. (Paras 26, 27)

(B) Judicial Interpretation - The definition of 'Mineral' is not limited to raw minerals but does not extend to processed products under the current legislative framework. (Paras 19, 20)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, engaged in the business of selling finished granite products, challenged demand notices for seigniorage fees on grounds of jurisdiction and legality, asserting they do not deal in raw minerals. (Paras 2, 3, 4)

Findings of Court:
The court found the demand notices issued for seigniorage fees on finished products to be illegal and arbitrary, affirming that the respondents lack authority over processed minerals. (Paras 26, 27)

Issues: The main issues included the jurisdiction of authorities to impose seigniorage fees on finished products and the interpretation of relevant mineral laws. (Paras 9, 10)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the processed minerals do not fall under the definition of 'Mineral' as per the applicable laws, and thus, the demand for seigniorage fees was unauthorized. (Paras 26, 27)

Result: Writ petitions allowed; demand notices set aside.

ORDER :

K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

As the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order.

2. WP No.15066 of 2016 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

“….to issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Demand Notice No 12196/VE/Ogl/201516 dated 11022016 raising demand against a finished product sold by the petitioner, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unconstitutional and in violation of principles of Natural Justice and contrary to the Judgment of this Honble Court in the case of Novel Granites and others Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh and others reported in 2010 (1) ALD 812 and consequentially to direct the respondents not to interfere with the business of the petitioner in any way and pass….”

The main grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the petitioner firm conducts business of buying and selling finished products i.e., Granite Slabs and Granite Tiles in the name and Style of M/s. Sivam Exports, for which, it also registered with Sale Tax Department and paying all the relevant Taxes such as VAT, Sales Tax, Income Tax etc. The petitioner firm is not involved in dealing with raw mineral at all and the entire business of the petitioner is only in dealing with the finished and processed mineral. While the matter stood thus, all of a sudden the impugned Demand Notice No. 1219(6)/V&E/Ogl/2015-16, dated 11.02.2016 was issued by the 3rd respondent demanding an amount of Rs.1,43,06,456/- from the petitioner towards the alleged seignerage fee and 5 times penalty. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition WP No.15066 of 2016 came to be filed.

3. WP No.22303 of 2016 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

“…..to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nure of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of Respondent No 4 in insisting upon the Petitioner for obtaining of transit passes issued by their office for sale/ transportation of manufactured /finished product slabs and tiles from Petitioners Unit as arbitrary illegal unjust unconstitutional and in violation of Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act 1957 A P Minor Mineral Concessi Rules 1966 A P Mineral Dealers Rules 2000 and the judgment reported in 2010 1 ALD 812 and pass such order….”

The facts of the case in WP No.22303 of 2016 are that, the petitioner firm is an established Unit after obtaining relevant permissions from all the authorities such as Small Scale Industrial permission, factory licencse and it also registered with Commercial Tax Department. The petitioner firm purchased raw blocks from the lessees with valid dispatch permits issued by the office of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology followed by way bills. Once the sale is concluded with buyers, the petitioner firm obtained necessary way bills from the commercial Tax department for transportation of the same. while so, a show cause notice bearing No.974/V&E/ OGL/2015-16, dated 23.09.2015 was served on the petitioner alleging that they have received creditable information that 415039 sq ft or 1165.826 cbm quantity of polished granite slabs transported during the period from December 2014 to May 2015 from petitioner unit with only Commercial Tax department way bill. Therefore they have conducted an Inquiry.

It is further stated that M/s Hamsa Minerals India (PVT) Ltd in holding a valid quarry lease granted by State Government in Sy No.67/1B/C of R.L Puram village, Cheemakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District. The granite blocks purchased have suffered payment of seigniorage fee and the petitioner has received it along with valid permit followed by way bill signed and sealed by the office of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology. The petitioner do not sell any mineral in the raw form. Therefore the petitioner produced all the way bills supplied by M/s Ha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top