Sign In
Learn bits
Polity & Governance
Mahesh

30/07/24 13:19 PM IST

The Supreme Court verdict on States’ power to tax mining activities

In News
  • The Supreme Court affirmed that States have the legislative authority to impose taxes on minerals in addition to the royalty levied by the Centre.
About the case
  • Section 9 of the 1957 Act requires those who obtain leases to conduct mining activities to “pay royalty in respect of any mineral removed” to the individual or corporation who leased the land to them.
  • The key question for consideration was whether the royalties paid by mine leaseholders to State governments under the 1957 Act should be classified as “tax.”
  • Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the Centre could impose such charges or if the States possessed the sole authority to levy them within their jurisdictions.
  • The case has its genesis in a dispute between India Cement Ltd and the Tamil Nadu government which arose after the company secured a mining lease in Tamil Nadu.
  • Although India Cement was already paying royalties, the government imposed a cess — an additional tax on land revenues, including royalties.
  • The company challenged this in the Madras High Court contending that the cess on royalties effectively constituted a tax on royalties, the imposition of which exceeded the State’s legislative authority.
  • In 1989, a seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court inIndia Cement Ltd. vs. State of Tamil Nadu decided in favour of India Cement by reasoning that States only have the power to collect royalties and not impose taxes on mining activities.
  • It pointed out that the Union government exercises overriding authority over the “regulation of mines and mineral development” under Entry 54 of the Union List, as specified by law (in this case, the 1957 Act).
  • Thus, States are not empowered to levy additional taxes on this subject. 
  • Over a decade later, a five-judge Bench in 2004, while hearing a similar dispute between West Bengal and Kesoram Industries Ltd held that there was a typographical error in the India Cement decision and that the phrase “royalty is a tax” should be read as “cess on royalty is a tax”.
  • However, since the Bench was smaller than the one in the India Cement case, it was unable to overrule or amend the previous ruling.
  • In 2011, a three-judge Bench led by former Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia, while examining a challenge to a Bihar law imposing a cess on land revenue from mineral-bearing lands, recognised the conflicting precedents set by Kesoram Industries and India Cement.
  • It accordingly referred the issue to a nine-judge Bench to definitively settle the legal position. 
Tax v/s Royalty
  • Over a decade later, a five-judge Bench in 2004, while hearing a similar dispute between West Bengal and Kesoram Industries Ltd held that there was a typographical error in the India Cement decision and that the phrase “royalty is a tax” should be read as “cess on royalty is a tax”.
  • However, since the Bench was smaller than the one in the India Cement case, it was unable to overrule or amend the previous ruling.
  • In 2011, a three-judge Bench led by former Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia, while examining a challenge to a Bihar law imposing a cess on land revenue from mineral-bearing lands, recognised the conflicting precedents set by Kesoram Industries and India Cement.
  • It accordingly referred the issue to a nine-judge Bench to definitively settle the legal position. 
State's power on tax
  • Entry 50 of the State List under the seventh Schedule of the Constitution gives States the exclusive authority to make laws regarding “taxes on mineral rights”, but this power is limited by any laws Parliament may pass concerning mineral development.
  • On the other hand, Entry 54 of the Union List gives the Centre the power to regulate “mines and mineral development,” especially when Parliament decides it is necessary in public interest.
  • During the proceedings, the Centre argued that Entry 50 in the State List had allowed Parliament to impose “any limitations” on taxes on mineral rights through the promulgation of laws relating to mineral development — in this case, the 1957 Act.
  • However, the majority reasoned that since royalties could not be classified as a tax, they do not fall within the category of “taxes on mineral rights” as defined in Entry 50 of the State List.
  • As a result, it was held that the 1957 Act merely provided States with another source of revenue through royalties, without interfering with their authority to levy taxes on mineral rights under Entry 50.
  • While the Centre is empowered to regulate mining development under Entry 54 of the Union List, the court clarified that this authority does not include the power to impose taxes, which is exclusively under the jurisdiction of the State legislatures.
  • However, this express power, it said, is subject to “any limitations” that may be imposed by Parliament which could even include a “prohibition’” against imposing taxes.
  • This implies that if the Centre wanted to modify the existing legislative framework under the 1957 Act to divest States of their power to levy a tax, it could do so.
  • The majority also held that States have the power to tax the land where mines and quarries are located by virtue of Article 246 read with Entry 49 (taxes on lands and buildings) of the State List.
  • “In other words, mineral-bearing lands also fall within the description of lands under Entry 49 of List 2,” the CJI declared, adding that the income of the land yield can be adopted as a measure of tax. 
Source- The Hindu

More Related Current Affairs View All

15 Nov

Government issues guidelines to curb misleading ads by coaching centres

'The central Government issued new guidelines aimed at curbing misleading advertisements by coaching institutes, specifically prohibiting false promises such as "100 per cent selec

Read More

15 Nov

Janjatiya Gaurav Divas

'Every year on November 15th, Janjatiya Gaurav Divas is celebrated to honor the contributions of these communities, especially in India’s freedom struggle.' 5th November

Read More

15 Nov

Supreme Court’s order on mandatory accessibility standards

'A bench of the Supreme Court last week ordered the Union government to frame mandatory rules for ensuring the accessibility of public places and services to persons with disabilit

Read More

India’s First Ai-Driven Magazine Generator

Generate Your Custom Current Affairs Magazine using our AI in just 3 steps