VIKRAM NATH, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
Patna Municipal Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Kraft – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Delay condoned.
3. Leave granted in both petitions.
4. As the issue involved in both cases is same, these appeals are dealt with collectively. For the sake of convenience, facts in the Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.22592 of 2016 are noticed.
5. Challenge is laid to the Final Judgment and Order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) in Letters Patent Appeal No.1391 of 2012 dated 26.04.2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”) by which the Judgment and Order passed by the Single Bench dated 29.06.2012 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5108 of 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “Single Bench Judgment") has been set aside and it has been held that the appellant(s) herein could not raise any demand of tax/fee/royalty on advertisement(s) since it has been made without any legislative sanction and is, thus, violative of Article 2653[‘265. Taxes not to be imposed save by authority of law. – No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.’] of the Constitution of India, 1950 (here
Indsil Hydro Power and Manganese Limited v State of Kerala
Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company Ltd. v Ulhasnagar Municipal Council
Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v Anjum M H Ghaswala
Union of India v Naveen Jindal
State of Kerala v Chandramohanan
Ram Sunder Ram v Union of India
Mohd. Shahabuddin v State of Bihar
Alok Shanker Pandey v Union of India
Mineral Area Development Authority v Steel Authority of India
(1) Levy of tax on advertisement(s) – Imposition of royalty cannot be equated with imposition of tax/levy – Royalty and tax cannot be equated – Royalty and tax are not one and same.(2) Estoppel – Con....
Royalty is a contractual obligation distinct from taxes; amendments to regulations cannot retrospectively apply to existing contracts unless explicitly stated.
Subordinate legislation must align with the parent Act; regulations exceeding authority are invalid. Royalty payment under mining laws can only be for minerals actually removed or consumed.
Royalty, under the MMDR Act, is not a tax but a contractual consideration for mineral rights. State legislatures retain the power to tax mineral-bearing land, but this power is subject to any limita....
Municipal Boards must justify licence fees based on actual services rendered; excessive fees may be deemed an illegal tax.
Only the Central Government can amend royalty rates under Section 9(3) of the MMDR Act, and demands for additional royalty based solely on audit findings lack legal basis.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.