JUDGMENT Pritinker Diwaker, CJ. Heard Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel for the revenue. 2. Upon the matter being taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the royalty payment is tax and not consideration in the context of the privilege parted by the State allowing the petitioner and others to mine sand. That being the nature of the payment made by the petitioner, the same is not amenable to GST as it is not consideration either for sale of goods or service provided. 3. Further reliance has been placed on a Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in India Cement Ltd. and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (1990) 1 SCC 12 , wherein, nature of royalty payment was considered and it was opined to be in the nature of tax, (in paragraph 34 of the report). 4. Also, it has been shown that a similar controversy is engaging the attention of the Supreme Court in M/s Lakhwinder Singh v. Union of India & Ors. in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1076 of 2021. On 04.10.2021, the Supreme Court has passed the below quoted order:- "1. Issue notice. 2. Tag with SLP(C) No 37326 of 2017. 3. Until further orders, payment of GST for grant of mining lease/royalty by the petitioner shall remain stayed." 5. Connect and list with Writ Tax No. 475 of 2021. 6. Until further orders, payment of GST for grant of mining lease/royalty by the petitioner shall remain stayed.