HBL SUPREME COURT ORDER ON RESUMPTION OF MINING IN ARAVALLI DISTRICTS OF STATE (2024)
Since 2002, FMAR has been relentlessly making efforts to resume legal mining in Aravalli Districts of State. On 09.05.2024, hearing of Aravalli Matter, FMAR engaged Mr ASN Nadkarni, Sr Adv for the hearing & Secretary General himself discussed the whole matter with Sr Adv.at Delhi. As of result, FMAR got a favourable order after span of 20 years as renewal/extension of lease & legal mining were banned in Aravalli.
HBL Supreme Court directed as follows:
GOR & GOH shall file Aravalli Mapping & its extent.
State Govt may consider & process applications for grant of mining leases, renewal & all statutory clearances subject to final permission from Court.
Legal mining to be continued with valid permission / licences in Aravalli hills.
Constitute a Committee for uniform definition of Aravalli Hills/Range, consisting of MOEF Secretary, Forest Secretaries of Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Rep of FSI, CEC, GSI & JS of MOEF within 2 months.
MOEF, GOR, GOH, GNCTD shall file comments or response in respect with CEC Report 03/2024.
GOR, GOH shall file ATR in respect with Action taken in compliance of last 15 Orders of Court.
GOR, GOH shall file ATR in respect with action taken against illegal mining in compliance of CAG/CEC Report
GOR, GOH shall file ATR in respect with action taken against illegal mining polygon, shown in FSI Report dt 22.02.2018.
GOR shall file Reply in respect with FSI Report dt. 19.02.2010
Supreme Court RCM Judgement - 2021
The Union of India vs. VKC Footsteps India Pvt. Ltd. is a landmark Supreme Court judgment delivered on September 13, 2021. It upheld the constitutional validity of CGST Rule 89(5), which restricts taxpayers from claiming refunds for unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) on input services under an inverted duty structure.
The Core Issue:
An “inverted duty structure” happens when the tax rate on raw materials/inputs is higher than the tax rate on the finished product. This causes an accumulation of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC). The dispute centered on how the refund for this accumulated ITC is calculated.
The Dispute:
The Taxpayer Stance: Companies (like VKC Footsteps) argued that the refund formula in Rule 89(5) unjustly excluded “input services” from the calculation of Net ITC. They argued this violated Section 54(3) of the CGST Act.
The High Court Rulings: The Gujarat High Court agreed with the taxpayers, ruling that excluding input services was unconstitutional. However, the Madras High Court ruled in favor of the Government, finding the rule valid
The Supreme Court Decision:
The Supreme Court sided with the Government and the Madras High Court, delivering a major ruling on GST taxation:
Formula Validation: The Court declared that Rule 89(5) is valid and mathematically aligns with the parental Section 54(3) of the CGST Act.
Goods vs. Services: The Court noted that input goods and input services are fundamentally different. The legislature never intended for input services to be automatically granted the exact same refund treatment as physical input goods.
Policy Mandate: Because the refund rules inherently disallow the refund of accumulated credit on input services, the Court urged the GST Council to reconsider and fix the formula to prevent anomalies for taxpayers.