JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.

2. Regard being had to the commonality of issue involved and the similitude of controversy pyramided in all these appeals, preferred by special leave, they were heard together and are disposed of by a singular order. For the sake of convenience, the facts in Civil Appeal arising from Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8283 of 2012 are adumbrated herein.

3. The respondent preferred DB Civil Writ Petition No. 4357 of 2009 before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur challenging the constitutional validity of Chapter VII of the Rajasthan Finance Act, 2008 (for brevity ‘the Act’) which provides for levy of cess on mineral rights. The respondent was granted a mining lease for extraction on major minerals. As per the amendment brought in the year 2008 it was required to pay the environment and health cess imposed under Section 16 of the Act. The State Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 19 of the Act, framed a set of rules called Rajasthan Environment and Health Cess Rules, 2008 (for short “the Rules”). Rule 13 of the Rules provides for the head under which the cess collected under Section 16 of the Act is to be credited. Rule 14 of the Rules provides for the allocation of the funds for implementation of environment and health projects in mining areas in various parts of the State. Questioning the constitutional validity of the impost under the Act it was contended before the High Court that the State Legislature had no competence to impose environment and health cess on major minerals as the field is occupied by the provisions contained in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ‘the MMDR Act’), which is an enactment by the Parliament. It was urged that the imposition of such cess is not a fee but a tax which is covered by the MMDR Act whereunder the power to levy tax on the mineral rights in respect of major minerals is vested in the Parliament. It was further put forth that the Parliament, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Entries 54 and 55 of List-I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, has enacted the MMDR Act and the Rules framed thereunder and under the said Act, the power vests from all spectrums in the Central Government in respect of major minerals and, therefore, the State Legislature could not have enacted such law for imposing such cess on major minerals. It was contended that the cess in question is a nature of fee and the levy of fee on major minerals is governed by the provisions contained in the MMDR Act and the Rules framed thereunder and hence, the State Legislature does not have competence to impose such cess.

4. Apart from the aforesaid contentions, certain other submissions were advanced and reliance was placed on India Cement Ltd. and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others [(1990) 1 SCC 12] wherein it has been held that the royalty was a tax. Be it noted, keeping in view the principle stated in India Cement Ltd.’s case, (a seven-Judge Bench decision) a three-Judge Bench in Orissa Cement Ltd. v. State of Orissa [(1991) Suppl. 1 SCC 430], held that the decision of levy of cess impugned therein was unconstitutional.

5. On behalf of the State reliance was placed on the Constitution Bench decision in State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. and Others [(2004) 10 SCC 201]. In the said case the State of West Bengal was aggrieved by the judgment rendered by the High Court of Calcutta wherein it was held that the levy of cess on coal bearing land was similar to the one which had been struck down in India Cement Ltd. (supra) and Orissa Cement Ltd. (supra) and on that foundation it was ruled that the State Legislature had no competence to levy such cess. The majority in the Constitution Bench referred to the Entries 52, 54, 96 and 97 of the Union List (List-I) and Entries 23, 49, 50 and 56 of the State List (List-II) of the Seventh Schedule, adve