During a TDS survey at the office of the assessee (District Mining Officer), the Assessing Officer treated the assessee as an ‘assessee-in-default’ for failing to collect TCS under section 206C(1C) on compounding fees and fines recovered from illegal miners and transporters of minerals. The High Court reversed the order, holding that section 206C(1C) strictly obliges tax collection only from leaseholders, license holders, or parties with whom a contract or right/interest transfer exists for a mine or quarry. There is no legislative mandate to collect TCS from illegal operators or on compounding fees/fines collected under the MMDR Act, 1957, as royalty does not encompass fines. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, finding no case for interference. (AY. 2018-19)
Dy. CIT (TDS) v. Deputy Director (Mineral and Administration) [2026] 309 Taxman 499 (SC). Dy. CIT (TDS) v. District Mining Officer, Dantewada Mining Office [[2026] 309 Taxman 246/ 488 ITR 669 (SC). Editorial: District Mining Officer v. Dy.CIT (TDS) [2025] 175 taxmann.com 1008 //(2026) 488 ITR 656 (Chhattisgarh)(HC) / District Mining Officer v. Dy. CIT (TDS) [2025] 175 taxmann.com 1008 /(2026) 488 ITR 656 (Chhattisgarh). (HC
S. 206C: Collection at source-Trading-Forest produce-No legislative mandate to collect TCS on compounding fees or fines recovered from illegal miners and mineral transporters-SLP dismissed [S. 206(IC), Art. 136, MMDR Act, 1957, S. 23A, Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Rules, 2015, R. 71(5)]
Leave a Reply