Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (2.27 seconds)Section 9 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Article 246 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India vs H. S. Dhillon on 21 October, 1971
In Union of India v. H.S. Dhillon, (supra), this Court
approved the principle laid down in S.C. Nawn's case as well
as Nazareth's case (supra).
Section 3 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
The Hingir-Rampur Coal Co., Ltd. And ... vs The State Of Orissa And Others on 21 November, 1960
In Hingir--Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. The
State of Orissa (supra), Wanchoo J. in his dissenting judg-
ment has stated that a tax on mineral rights being different
from a duty of excise, pertains only to a tax that is levi-
able for the grant of the right to extract minerals, and is
not a tax on minerals as well. On that basis, a tax on
royalty would not be a tax on mineral rights and would
therefore in any event be outside the competence of the
state legislature.
The University of Rajasthan (Amendment) Act, 1972
Section 1 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Anant Mills Co. Ltd vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 21 January, 1975
If it is neither a tax nor a fee then it
should be under one of the general entries under List II.
The expression 'land' according to its legal significance
has an indefinite extent both upward and downwards, the
surface of the soil and would include not only the face of
the earth but everything under it or over it. See the obser-
vations in Anant Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.,
[19751 3 SCR 220 at 249. The minerals which are under the
earth, can in certain circumstances fall under the expres-
sion 'land' but as tax on mineral rights is expressly cov-
ered by entry 50 of list II, if it is brought under the head
taxes under entry 49 of list II, it would render entry 50 of
list II redundant. Learned Attorney General is right in
contending that entries should not be so construed as to
make any one entry redundant. It was further argued that
even in pith and substance the tax fell to entry 50 of list
II, it would be controlled by a legislation under entry 54
of list I.
On the other hand, learned Attorney General submitted
that if it be held to be a fee, then the source of power of
the state legislature is under entry 66 read with entry 23
of list II. Here also the extent to which regulation of
mines and mineral development under the control of the Union
is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the
public interest, to the extent such legislation makes provi-
sions will denude the State Legislature of its power to
override the provision under entry 50 of list II. In view of
the Parliamentary legislation under entry 54, list I and the
declaration made under s. 2 and provisions of s. 9 of the
Act, the State Legislature would be overridden to that
extent. S. 2 declares that it is expedient in the public
interest that Union should take under its control the regu-
lation of mines and the development of minerals to the
extent provided therein.