Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 51 (2.21 seconds)
Documents citing H. R. S. Murthy vs Collector Of Chittoor And Another on 4 February, 1964

The State Of West Bengal vs Kesoram Industries Ltd. And Ors on 15 January, 2004

[underlining by us] H.R.S. Murthy Vs. The Collector of Chittoor and Anr. - (1964) 6 SCR 666 was a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution laying challenge to the validity of notices of demand for the payment of land cess under the Madras District Boards Act, 1920. The mining lease dated September 15, 1953, authorised the lessee to work and win iron ore in a tract of land in Chittoor; dead rent, royalty and surface rent were payable under the mining lease. The District Board levied land cess on the annual rental value of all occupied lands. The challenge to the constitutional validity of the land cess was dismissed. The Court held:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 106 - Cited by 2062 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

A.C. Paul Agricultural Co. Pvt. Ltd. And ... vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 29 September, 1983

18. I find no repugnancy between the provisions of the West Bengal Rural Employment and Production Act, 1976, and those of the Tea Act, 1953. The object of the Tea Act, 1953, is to provide control by the Union of tea industry, of the cultivation of tea, its export and to establish a Tea Board and to levy a duty of excise on tea produced in India. The West Bengal Act does not provide for any control of tea industry and the West Bengal Act does not also deal with any of the matters covered by the Tea Act, 1953; merely because the cess on land comprised in the tea estates under the said State Act has been lined with the weight of the tea despatches, it cannot be urged that the said State Act deals substantially with the matters covered by the Tea Act. There is nothing common between the Tea Act and the West Bengal Rural Employment and Production Act, 1976: see Hingir Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa and H.R.S. Murthy v. Collector of Chittoor . I also find no substance in the petitioner's submission that the object of the West Bengal Rural Employment and Production Act, 1976, is to canalize sale of tea auction centres. The Act imposes cess on different kinds of immovable properties for raising money for the fund created under Section 5 of the said Act.
Calcutta High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mangalam Cement Ltd. And Etc. Etc. vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 11 December, 1986

In H.R.S. Murthy v. Collector of Chittoor, AIR 1965 SC 177 and State of Orissa v. M.A. Tulloch and Co. (AIR 1964 SC 1284) referring to the provisions of Sections 78 and 79 of the Madras District Boards Act (14 of 1920) which provided for levy of land cess on the annual value and annual rent value, held that these sections have nothing to do and are not concerned with the development of mines and minerals or their regulation. It was further held that it will be seen that there is no connection between the regulation and development of mines and minerals dealt with in the central Acts and the levy and collection of land cess for which provisions is made by Sections 78 and 79 of the Act. It was also urged in that case before their Lordships that the land cess was really a (ax on the mineral rights falling within entry 50 of the State List. The court observed :
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 62 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Bal Mukand Arora And Etc. Etc. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 30 August, 1980

12. The meaning of 'Royalty' given in H.R.S. Murthy's case (AIR 1965 SC 177) (supra) by the Supreme Court is not different from the meaning of 'Royalty' given in the Rules. In fact, both the 'royalty' and 'dead rent' have got established meaning in law and there is not much scope for debate or difference of opinion about the meaning to be given to them. Whereas 'dead rent' is charged in the form of fixed rental or minimum amount, for granting lease or licence in respect of minor minerals and mining operation for a particular area, 'royalty' is charged on the basis of the material or mineral excavated or extracted or taken out from the area concerned of mines. The sole difference between two is that whereas the 'dead rent' is charged irrespective of the user or excavation of the mining, 'royalty' is charged only on the excavation of material or mineral from those mines.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Saurashtra Cement & Chemical ... vs Union Of India And Anr. on 19 January, 1979

S. 79 (1), therefore, inter alia, used in juxtaposition the lease amount and royalty. It was contended in that case before the Supreme Court that since, "the impugned land cess was payable only in the event of a mining lease winning the mineral and so paying the royalty and not when' no minerals were extracted, it was in effect a tax on mineral won and, therefore on mineral rights."
Gujarat High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Chhitabhai Ghelabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 2 May, 1969

5. While dealing with the question of legislative competence in respect of a statute, and while ascertaining under which entry of the Lists to Schedule VI the impugned enactment falls, what is to be seen is the true character and substance of the enactment and the class of subjects of legislation to which it in substance belongs. What is to be looked at is not the mere form but the substance of the levy and the tax in a taxing statute. In such cases, if the substance of an enactment falls within the competence and legislative power of the legislative body, the enactment cannot be considered to be invalid because incidentally or remotely it affects a matter outside the purview of legislative sphere. It will be useful here to quote some of the observations made in H.R.S. Murthy v. Collector of Chittoor :
Gujarat High Court Cites 59 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tata Chemicals Ltd. And Anr. vs State Of Gujarat on 22 February, 1988

In Corpus Juris Secudum Volume 77, the term 'royalty' has been explained as payment made to the land owner by the lessee of a mine in return for the privilege of working it. In H.R.S. Murthy v. Collector of Chittoor , the meaning of the expression 'royalty' in Section 79(1) of the Madras District Boards Act was under consideration. Dealing with the same, the Supreme Court observed in paragraph 7 of the judgment as under:
Gujarat High Court Cites 89 - Cited by 1 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

K.J. Joseph And Ors. vs Income-Tax Officer, A Ward on 4 April, 1979

In H.R.S. Murthy v. Collector of Chittoor, AIR 1965 SC 177, the question arose as to the meaning of the expression "royalty" with reference to Section 79(1) of the Madras District Boards Act of 1920. That section specifically referred to the lease amount as one of the components for computation of the annual rental value. Royalty followed immediately after the expression "lease amount" in the section. It was held that it normally connotes payments made for materials or minerals won from the land. The argument was that Section 78 of the Madras District Boards Act imposing land cess as royalty under mining leases cannot be held to have been repealed by the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act, 1948, or, in any event, by the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act, 1957--both enactments by Parliament; so that, after these Acts, the land cess that could be levied under the Madras Act would only be exclusive of royalty. It was ruled that there was no overlapping between the Central Acts and the Madras Act, and that the Madras Act was in no way concerned with mines and minerals. It was further ruled that the land cess under the Madras Act is a " tax on land " under entry 49 of the State List of the Government of India Act, 1935. The court observed (pp. 181, 182):
Kerala High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next