JMB ROCKS Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a relief of mandamus against the issuance of the show cause notice, date 15/4/2020, by which the petitioner was demanded to pay a certain sum of money representing the seigniorage fee, market value and penalty, failing which it was stated that necessary action will be initiated.

(2.) There is an express reference to Rule 26(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (in short the Rules) in this notice,which was last amended in March-2016 and it is therefore contended that the notice itself is untenable in law.The learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology has filed his counter and opposed the prayers.

(3.) Sri N. Vijay,learned counsel for the petitioner has essentially raised two main questions in this Writ Petition. According to him Rule 26(3) of the Rules,as amended in 2016, made the unaccounted consumption or possession of minerals without proof of payment of revenue a penal offense and so this sort of levypenalty can only be imposed after a dueproper trail like a sentence by the Court of Law and not by an officer of the Department. He argues that the show cause notice is without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. He also argues that the show cause notice is issued on the basis of the estimation based on the electricity consumption charge which is a very unscientific method of assessing the alleged quantity of minor mineral for which fee has not been paid. He, therefore, argues that without the application of mind or on a scientific basis the show cause notice has been issued. Apart from that he also raised an issue that the records could not be producedas they were with the GST Department and that ulterior and for political motives a show cause notice has been issued. He also relied upon L. Venkateswara Rao vs. Singareni Collieries, 1993 (3) ALT 199, wherein it was held that Rule 26 (2) of the Rules, 1966 was held to be valid and it was meant to be used only against bulk users or consumers. He also relies upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, reported in Sreerama Oil Company vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 2006 (143) STC AP (Page 18), wherein the action of the Commercial Tax authorities in assessing the turnover on the basis of consumption of electricity was struck down. Theratio of the case before the Division Bench, according to the learned counsel, was applicable in principle to the present set of facts.