{"id":327563,"date":"2024-07-30T11:00:56","date_gmt":"2024-07-30T05:30:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=327563"},"modified":"2024-08-03T12:00:36","modified_gmt":"2024-08-03T06:30:36","slug":"supreme-court-ruling-parliament-power-impose-limitations-state-levy-tax-on-mineral-rights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/30\/supreme-court-ruling-parliament-power-impose-limitations-state-levy-tax-on-mineral-rights\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court on Parliament\u2019s power to impose limitations on State to levy tax on mineral rights"},"content":{"rendered":"<div style=\"text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;\">\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Supreme Court:<\/span> In a matter concerning the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States on the taxation of mineral rights, the Nine Judge Constitution Bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI, Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay S Oka, BV Nagarathna, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih JJ. has held that royalty paid by mining operators to the Central government is not a tax and that States have the power to levy cesses on mining and mineral-use activities. Whereas, Justice BV Nagarathna, gave a dissenting opinion.<\/p>\n<p>The Majority held the following:<\/p>\n<ul style=\"list-style-type: disc;\">\n<li>Entry 50 of List II envisages that Parliament can impose \u201cany limitations\u201d on the legislative field created by that entry under a law relating to mineral development. The MMDR Act as it stands has not imposed any limitations as envisaged in Entry 50 of List II;<\/li>\n<li>The scope of the expression \u201cany limitations\u201d under Entry 50 of List II is wide enough to include the imposition of restrictions, conditions, principles, as well as a prohibition;<\/li>\n<li>The State legislatures have legislative competence under Article 246 read with Entry 49 of List II to tax lands which comprise of mines and quarries. Mineral bearing land falls within the description of \u201clands\u201d under Entry 49 of List II;<\/li>\n<li>The yield of mineral bearing land, in terms of the quantity of mineral produced or the royalty, can be used as a measure to tax the land under Entry 49 of List II. The decision in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Goodricke Group Ltd.<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">State of W.B<\/span>., <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/fC1pl7rQ\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">1995 Supp (1) SCC 707<\/a> is clarified to this extent;<\/li>\n<li>Entries 49 and 50 of List II deal with distinct subject matters and operate in different fields. Mineral value or mineral produce can be used as a measure to impose a tax on lands under Entry 49 of List II;<\/li>\n<li>The \u201climitations\u201d imposed by Parliament in a law relating to mineral development with respect to Entry 50 of List II do not operate on Entry 49 of List II because there is no specific stipulation under the Constitution to that effect; and<\/li>\n<li>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The decisions in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">India Cement Ltd.<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">State of T.N.<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/n8xUxutR\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">(1990) 1 SCC 12<\/a>; <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Orissa Cement Ltd.<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">State of Orissa<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/7zDtC898\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">1991 Supp (1) SCC 430<\/a>; <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Federation of Mining Assns. of Rajasthan<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">State of Rajasthan<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/W39Ji50t\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">1992 Supp (2) SCC 239<\/a>; <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">State of M.P<\/span>. v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Mahalaxmi Fabric Mills Ltd.<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/L3kpCDTQ\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">1995 Supp (1) SCC 642<\/a>; <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Saurashtra Cement &amp; Chemical Industries Ltd.<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Union of India<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/h25Qi3lh\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">(2001) 1 SCC 91<\/a>; <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">State of Orissa<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/3915WrYV\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">1995 Supp (2) SCC 686<\/a> and <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">P. Kannadasan<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">State of T.N<\/span>., <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/PN3NVPO0\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">(1996) 5 SCC 670<\/a> are overruled to the extent of the observations made in the present case.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><b>Also Read:<\/b><\/p>\n<div>\n<div><a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/29\/supreme-court-verdict-royalty-as-tax-states-power-to-levy-cess-on-mining-mineral-use-activities\/\">Explained | Supreme Court\u2019s verdict on \u2018royalty\u2019 as tax and States power to levy cess on mining and mineral-use activities<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Whether the expression \u201csubject to any limitations imposed by Parliament by law relating to mineral development\u201d in Entry 50 of List II pro tanto subjects the entry to Entry 54 of List I, which is a non-taxing general entry? Consequently, is there any departure from the general scheme of distribution of legislative powers as enunciated in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">M P V Sundararamier<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">State of Andhra Pradesh<\/span>, (1958) 1 SCR 1422?<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court noted that the MMDR Act largely denudes the states of their legislative powers with respect to regulation of mines and mineral development under Entry 23 of List II. However, the expression in Entry 50 of List II demonstrates that: (i) Parliament can limit the legislative power of the States to tax minerals; and (ii) the limitation has to be imposed \u201cby law\u201d relating to mineral development.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court said that authorizing the Central Government to lay down the terms of mining leases and grant approval to concessions, the MMDR Act seeks to ensure that there is uniformity in the terms for working of mines and extraction of minerals. The fact that the State Government cannot alter the clauses in the mining lease cannot be understood to mean that all the powers of the State with respect to regulation of mines and mineral development as well as the power to tax mineral rights have been extinguished.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court said that Entry 50 of List II provides that the legislative power of States to tax mineral rights is subject to any limitations imposed by Parliament by law relating to mineral development. The taxing power is subject to \u201cany limitations\u201d and not a \u201claw relating to mineral development\u201d. If the Constitution intended to restrict the taxing powers under Entry 50 of List II with respect to a parliamentary law, it would not have used the expression \u201cany limitations\u201d. It could have used phraseology such as for example, \u201cTaxes on mineral rights subject to any law relating to mineral development made by Parliament.\u201d Parliament has to \u2018impose\u2019 the limitations. That is, Parliament has to expressly specify the limitations by the authority of law. Thus, under Entry 50 of List II the taxing power of the State is subject to the extent that Parliament imposes any limitations \u201cby law\u201d relating to mineral development.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Thus, the Court said that the Parliament can impose limitations under Entry 50 of List II by means of statutory provisions. There is no specific provision in the MMDR Act which imposes limitations on the power of the States to tax mineral rights. The scheme of the MMDR Act cannot by a process of stretched construction be read to limit the taxing powers of States under Entry 50 of List II.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">While examining whether the statute contains any provision imposing \u201cany limitations\u201d, the Court said that since royalty payable under Section 9 is not a tax on mineral rights, any limitation on the enhancement of the rates of royalty is not the imposition of a tax under Entry 50 of List II. Section 9 does not expressly impose any limitations on the powers of the State to tax mineral rights. Section 9(3) limits the power of the Central Government to enhance royalty more than once in three years. This limitation does not govern taxes on mineral rights.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Further, the Court said that the payments under Sections 9B and 9C do not amount to a tax on mineral rights. Thus, Sections 9, 9A, 9B, and 9C do not impose any limitations on the taxation powers of the state legislatures under Entry 50 of List II.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold;\">3. What is the scope of Entry 49 of List II and whether it covers a tax which involves a measure based on the value of the produce of land? Would the constitutional position be any different qua mining land on account of Entry 50 of List II read with Entry 54 of List I?<\/p>\n<p>The Court summarised the following principles for tax under Entry 49 of List II:<\/p>\n<ul style=\"list-style-type: disc;\">\n<li>The expression \u201clands\u201d means all kinds of lands irrespective of the use to which the land is put;<\/li>\n<li>The expression \u201clands\u201d includes not only the surface but everything under and over the surface;<\/li>\n<li>A tax on lands and buildings is a tax on lands and buildings as units;<\/li>\n<li>The expression \u2018tax on lands and buildings as a unit\u2019 is used to distinguish composite taxes which involve imposition of tax cumulatively on all assets such as under Entry 86 of List I;<\/li>\n<li>The tax is not a tax on totality, that is, it is not a composite tax on the value of all lands and buildings;<\/li>\n<li>The tax is not concerned with the division of interest in the building or land;<\/li>\n<li>A tax levied on the activity or service rendered on or in connection with lands and buildings does not fall within the description of taxes on lands and buildings under Entry 49 of List II;<\/li>\n<li>The use to which the land is put does not affect the competence of the State legislature to tax it; and<\/li>\n<li>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The legislature may take into account the use of land for determining the measure of taxation under Entry 49 of List II.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The Court further laid down the following principles:<\/p>\n<ul style=\"list-style-type: disc;\">\n<li>the incidence of a tax on lands and buildings will likely be on the owner or occupier, as the case may be;<\/li>\n<li>the legislature may adopt a suitable measure for levying the tax on lands and buildings under Entry 49 of List II;<\/li>\n<li>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">the measure adopted by the legislature does not determine the nature of the tax.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">After taking note of Goodricke (supra) the Court said that this decision indicates that the field reserved to the States under Entry 49 of List II is to impose a tax on land as a unit, without seeking to control the activity or use taking place on the land which is taxed. Similarly, a tax on mineral-bearing land is a tax on the land as a unit; it does not seek to control the mining activity which takes place on the land. Therefore, the Court said there is no conflict between the taxing field of the States under Entry 49 of List II to levy a on tax mineral-bearing land and the power of Union to regulate mines and mineral development under the legislative head of Entry 54 of List I.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Concerning the issue of whether a mining lease also comprises a lease of land along with the mineral rights, the Court said that the transfer of interest in the minerals is distinct from the exercise of the mineral rights. Thus, the minerals are \u201cdecoupled\u201d from land only upon the exercise of mineral rights by the lessee.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Moreover, while clarifying the decision in Goodricke (supra), the Court said that in case the minerals are vested in the State, the royalty is paid to the State Government, and hence assumes the form of non-tax revenues. Therefore, royalty is relatable to the yield of the mineral-bearing land and the income in case the minerals vest in a private person.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court noted that India Cement (supra) and Orissa Cement (supra) held that since royalty is not an income derived from land and said that this holding is not correct since royalty is directly relatable to the yield of the mineral bearing land. These decisions have followed a narrow approach to the concept of royalty.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Thus, the Court held that the yield of a mineral bearing land, either in terms of the quantity of mineral produced, or in terms of the rates of royalty, can be used as a measure to tax the mineral bearing land under Entry 49 of List II.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold;\">4. Whether Entry 50 of List II is a specific entry in relation to Entry 49 of List II, and would consequently subtract mining land from the scope of Entry 49 of List II?<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court said that the mineral value or mineral produce could be used as a measure of the tax on land under Entry 49 of List II. The fact that Entry 50 of List II pertains to taxes on mineral rights would not preclude the State legislature from using the measure of mineral value or mineral produce under Entry 49 of List II.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Further, the Court said that the State legislature has legislative discretion to determine the appropriate measure for the purposes of quantifying taxes, so long as there is a reasonable nexus between the measure and the nature of the tax. The measure does not determine the nature of the tax.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Interpreting the words \u201clands\u201d under Entry 49 of List II, the Court said that it includes mineral bearing land. The mineral produce is the yield from a mineral bearing land. Since royalty is determined based on the mineral produce, royalty can also be used as a measure to determine the tax on royalty. The fact that the State legislature uses mineral produce or royalty as a measure does not overlap with Entry 50 of List II.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">[<span style=\"font-weight: bold; color: #632423;\">Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/Kw2ZgwrI\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">2024 SCC OnLine SC 1796<\/a>, decided on 25-07-2024<\/span>]<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #000080;\">*Judgment Authored by: CJI Dr. DY Chandrachud<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"UMaILhGc1w\"><p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/15\/not-here-to-do-miracles-but-to-work-on-bringing-institutional-changes-justice-dy-chandrachud-shares-his-to-do-list-as-the-50th-cji\/\">Not here to do miracles but to work on bringing institutional changes: Justice DY Chandrachud shares his to-do list as the 50th CJI<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\" sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" style=\"position: absolute; clip: rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);\" title=\"&#8220;Not here to do miracles but to work on bringing institutional changes: Justice DY Chandrachud shares his to-do list as the 50th CJI&#8221; &#8212; SCC Times\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/15\/not-here-to-do-miracles-but-to-work-on-bringing-institutional-changes-justice-dy-chandrachud-shares-his-to-do-list-as-the-50th-cji\/embed\/#?secret=e3oHO5TnM6#?secret=UMaILhGc1w\" data-secret=\"UMaILhGc1w\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\"><\/iframe><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p style=\"font-style: italic;\">Supreme Court said that authorizing the Central Government to lay down the terms of mining leases and grant approval to concessions, the MMDR Act seeks to ensure that there is uniformity in the terms for working of mines and extraction of minerals.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67512,"featured_media":327611,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,38282],"tags":[47247,58527,47295,44037,47211,55020,55018,44666,37644,71404,71405,31021,33403,5363,2621,71403],"class_list":["post-327563","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-decisions-of-the-constitution-benches-of-the-supreme-court","tag-justice-abhay-s-oka","tag-justice-augustine-george-masih","tag-justice-bv-nagarathna","tag-justice-dy-chandrachud","tag-justice-hrishikesh-roy","tag-justice-jb-pardiwala","tag-justice-manoj-misra","tag-justice-satish-chandra-sharma","tag-justice-ujjal-bhuyan","tag-mines-act","tag-nine-judge-bench","tag-parliament","tag-royalty","tag-supreme-court","tag-Tax","tag-tax-on-mineral-rights"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Supreme Court ruling on Parliament\u2019s power to impose limitations on State to levy tax on mineral rights | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court held that Entry 50 of List II envisages that Parliament can impose limitations on legislative field created by that entry under law relating to mineral development.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/30\/supreme-court-ruling-parliament-power-impose-limitations-state-levy-tax-on-mineral-rights\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court on Parliament\u2019s power to impose limitations on State to levy tax on mineral rights\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court held that Entry 50 of List II envisages that Parliament can impose limitations on legislative field created by that entry under law relating to mineral development.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/30\/supreme-court-ruling-parliament-power-impose-limitations-state-levy-tax-on-mineral-rights\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-07-30T05:30:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-08-03T06:30:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/10-15.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Supreme Court on Parliament\u2019s power to impose limitations on State to levy tax on mineral rights\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/30\/supreme-court-ruling-parliament-power-impose-limitations-state-levy-tax-on-mineral-rights\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/30\/supreme-court-ruling-parliament-power-impose-limitations-state-levy-tax-on-mineral-rights\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court ruling on Parliament\u2019s power to impose limitations on State to levy tax on mineral rights | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/30\/supreme-court-ruling-parliament-power-impose-limitations-state-levy-tax-on-mineral-rights\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/30\/supreme-court-ruling-parliament-power-impose-limitations-state-levy-tax-on-mineral-rights\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/10-15.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-07-30T05:30:56+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-08-03T06:30:36+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court held that Entry 50 of List II envisages that Parliament can impose limitations on legislative field created by that entry under law relating to mineral development.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/30\/supreme-court-ruling-parliament-power-impose-limitations-state-levy-tax-on-mineral-rights\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/30\/supreme-court-ruling-parliament-power-impose-limitations-state-levy-tax-on-mineral-rights\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/30\/supreme-court-ruling-parliament-power-impose-limitations-state-levy-tax-on-mineral-rights\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/10-15.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/10-15.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Tax on mineral rights\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/30\/supreme-court-ruling-parliament-power-impose-limitations-state-levy-tax-on-mineral-rights\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Supreme Court on Parliament\u2019s power to impose limitations on State to levy tax on mineral rights\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\",\"name\":\"Apoorva\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Apoorva\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court ruling on Parliament\u2019s power to impose limitations on State to levy tax on mineral rights | SCC Times","description":"Supreme Court held that Entry 50 of List II envisages that Parliament can impose limitations on legislative field created by that entry under law relating to mineral development.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/30\/supreme-court-ruling-parliament-power-impose-limitations-state-levy-tax-on-mineral-rights\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court on Parliament\u2019s power to impose limitations on State to levy tax on mineral rights","og_description":"Supreme Court held that Entry 50 of List II envisages that Parliament can impose limitations on legislative field created by that entry under law relating to mineral development.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/30\/supreme-court-ruling-parliament-power-impose-limitations-state-levy-tax-on-mineral-rights\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-07-30T05:30:56+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-08-03T06:30:36+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/10-15.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Apoorva","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Supreme Court on Parliament\u2019s power to impose limitations on State to levy tax on mineral rights","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Apoorva","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/30\/supreme-court-ruling-parliament-power-impose-limitations-state-levy-tax-on-mineral-rights\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/30\/supreme-court-ruling-parliament-power-impose-limitations-state-levy-tax-on-mineral-rights\/","name":"Supreme Court ruling on Parliament\u2019s power to impose limitations on State to levy tax on mineral rights | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/30\/supreme-court-ruling-parliament-power-impose-limitations-state-levy-tax-on-mineral-rights\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/30\/supreme-court-ruling-parliament-power-impose-limitations-state-levy-tax-on-mineral-rights\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/10-15.webp","datePublished":"2024-07-30T05:30:56+00:00","dateModified":"2024-08-03T06:30:36+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9"},"description":"Supreme Court held that Entry 50 of List II envisages that Parliament can impose limitations on legislative field created by that entry under law relating to mineral development.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/30\/supreme-court-ruling-parliament-power-impose-limitations-state-levy-tax-on-mineral-rights\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/30\/supreme-court-ruling-parliament-power-impose-limitations-state-levy-tax-on-mineral-rights\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/30\/supreme-court-ruling-parliament-power-impose-limitations-state-levy-tax-on-mineral-rights\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/10-15.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/10-15.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Tax on mineral rights"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/30\/supreme-court-ruling-parliament-power-impose-limitations-state-levy-tax-on-mineral-rights\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Supreme Court on Parliament\u2019s power to impose limitations on State to levy tax on mineral rights"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9","name":"Apoorva","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Apoorva"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/10-15.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":327356,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/25\/royalty-is-not-tax-under-mines-act-states-can-levy-tax-on-mineral-rights-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":327563,"position":0},"title":"Supreme Court holds that States can levy cesses on mining and mineral-use activities; Justice BV Nagarathna dissents","author":"Apoorva","date":"July 25, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"This matter was the oldest pending nine-judge Bench case before the Supreme court. The Bench had reserved its judgment in the matter on 14-03-2024","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Hot Off The Press&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"tax on mineral rights","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/sc-02-2.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/sc-02-2.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/sc-02-2.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/sc-02-2.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":328683,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/14\/judgment-on-state-power-levy-tax-mining-mineral-use-activities-apply-retrospectively-from-2005-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":327563,"position":1},"title":"Judgment on States\u2019 power to levy tax on mining and mineral-use activities to apply retrospectively from 2005: Supreme Court","author":"Apoorva","date":"August 14, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"On 25-07-2024, the Supreme Court in 8:1 majority held that royalty paid by mining operators to the Central government is not a tax and that States have the power to levy cesses on mining and mineral-use activities. Whereas, Justice BV Nagarathna gave a dissenting opinion.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Tax on Mineral rights retrospective","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/Tax-on-Mineral-rights-retrospective.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/Tax-on-Mineral-rights-retrospective.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/Tax-on-Mineral-rights-retrospective.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/Tax-on-Mineral-rights-retrospective.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":328099,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/05\/justice-bv-nagarathna-dissent-sc-verdict-royalty-as-tax-states-power-to-levy-cess-on-minera-rights\/","url_meta":{"origin":327563,"position":2},"title":"Read Justice BV Nagarathna\u2019s sole dissent in SC\u2019s verdict on \u2018royalty\u2019 as tax and States power to levy cess on mineral rights","author":"Apoorva","date":"August 5, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cRoyalty is in the nature of a tax or an exaction. It is not merely a contractual payment but a statutory levy under Section 9 of the MMDR Act.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Justice Nagarathna dissent on \u2018royalty\u2019 as tax","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/Justice-Nagarathna-dissent-on-%E2%80%98royalty-as-tax.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/Justice-Nagarathna-dissent-on-%E2%80%98royalty-as-tax.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/Justice-Nagarathna-dissent-on-%E2%80%98royalty-as-tax.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/Justice-Nagarathna-dissent-on-%E2%80%98royalty-as-tax.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":338256,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/01\/supreme-court-landmark-judgments-2024\/","url_meta":{"origin":327563,"position":3},"title":"50 Landmark Rulings: Supreme Court&#8217;s defining verdicts of 2024","author":"Apoorva","date":"January 1, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"In 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a series of landmark judgments that reshaped key legal and constitutional landscapes. Among the most significant were the AMU verdict; Mineral rights; Unilateral appointment of arbitrators; Constitutional validity of UP Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004; State's power to regulate industrial alcohol;\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Legal RoundUp&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court judgments 2024","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Supreme-Court-judgments-2024.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Supreme-Court-judgments-2024.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Supreme-Court-judgments-2024.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Supreme-Court-judgments-2024.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":338242,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/31\/supreme-court-constitution-and-larger-bench-judgments-in-2024\/","url_meta":{"origin":327563,"position":4},"title":"Supreme Court Constitution and Larger Bench Judgments which steered India\u2019s course in 2024","author":"Editor","date":"December 31, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Supreme Court\u2019s 2024 decisions have marked a significant turning point in the country\u2019s legal and constitutional framework. Key rulings delivered by Constitutional Benches on Electoral bonds, private property, royalty as tax, AMU\u2019s minority status, sub-classification within reserved categories, etc. have left an impact on fundamental rights, political transparency and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Legal RoundUp&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Constitutional Bench 2024 roundup","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Constitutional-Bench-2024-roundup.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Constitutional-Bench-2024-roundup.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Constitutional-Bench-2024-roundup.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Constitutional-Bench-2024-roundup.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":327533,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/29\/supreme-court-verdict-royalty-as-tax-states-power-to-levy-cess-on-mining-mineral-use-activities\/","url_meta":{"origin":327563,"position":5},"title":"Explained | Supreme Court\u2019s verdict on \u2018royalty\u2019 as tax and States power to levy cess on mining and mineral-use activities","author":"Apoorva","date":"July 29, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe payments made to the Government cannot be deemed to be a tax merely because the statute provides for their recovery as arrears\u201d.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Royalty is not tax","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/02-EXPLAINDE-copy-2.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/02-EXPLAINDE-copy-2.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/02-EXPLAINDE-copy-2.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/02-EXPLAINDE-copy-2.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/327563","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67512"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=327563"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/327563\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/327611"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=327563"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=327563"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=327563"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}