SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1981 Supreme(AP) 187

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.RAGHUVIR, K.MADHAVA REDDY
M.V.KRISHNA RAO - Appellant
Versus
District Collector, KRISHNA - Respondent
Decided On : 08-12-81

Dead rent is not a tax or impost within the meaning of the Constitution and the State Government has the power to prescribe dead rent as a delegate of the Parliament under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957.

Headnote:

MINES AND MINERALS - DEAD RENT - LEVY - VALIDITY - RULE 10 OF MINERAL CONCESSIONS RULES, 1966 - WHETHER ULTRA VIRES THE MINES AND MINERALS (REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 1957 - WHETHER DEAD RENT IS A TAX OR IMPOST - WHETHER THE STATE GOVERNMENT HAS THE POWER TO PRESCRIBE DEAD RENT - WHETHER RULE 10 HAS RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, lessees of various types of stone (minor minerals), challenged the demand for "dead rent" under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, and the Mineral Concessions Rules, 1966, arguing that dead rent was a tax or impost that could not be levied by subordinate legislation.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that dead rent is not a tax or impost within the meaning of the Constitution and that the State Government, as a delegate of the Parliament, has the power to prescribe dead rent. The court also held that Rule 10 of the Mineral Concessions Rules, 1966, is not ultra vires the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. However, the court held that Rule 10 has no retrospective operation and, therefore, dead rent can only be collected prospectively from the date of the impugned rule.

Issues: 1. Whether dead rent is a tax or impost within the meaning of the Constitution? 2. Whether the State Government has the power to prescribe dead rent? 3. Whether Rule 10 of the Mineral Concessions Rules, 1966, is ultra vires the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957? 4. Whether Rule 10 has retrospective operation?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Dead rent is not a tax or impost within the meaning of the Constitution because it is a payment made for the materials or minerals won from the land and not a return for the use of the land surface. 2. The State Government has the power to prescribe dead rent as a delegate of the Parliament under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. 3. Rule 10 of the Mineral Concessions Rules, 1966, is not ultra vires the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, because it is in accordance with the powers delegated to the State Government under Section 15 of the Act. 4. Rule 10 has no retrospective operation and, therefore, dead rent can only be collected prospectively from the date of the impugned rule.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ appeals and the writ petition of M. V. Krishna Rao, the lessee of blackroughstone, with directions to the State Government to issue demand notices afresh as to dead rent wherever "leases" or "concessions" were accorded after March 25, 1977, and in the cases "contracts" executed earlier, demands be made afresh excluding the dead rent.

RAGHUVIR, J.

( 1 ) IN the above group of case, the lessees of various types of stone (minor minerals) have approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution to interdict the State of Andhra Pradesh not to collect "dead rent" from them. In the petition lodged on September 4, 1977, M. V. Subba Rao, is the lessee for black granite stone; whereas in the petition lodged on december, 8, 1977, the following firms; M/s- Road Metal Industries; M/s. Mahaveer Metal Industries; Hyderabed Metal Industries; Fine Granite pvt. Ltd. , and Superfine Crusker are lessees of granite stone. In the petition lodged on December 18, 1978, M. V. Krishna Rao is the lessee for black rough stone. All these lessees make a common cause against the state Government when "dead rent" is demanded for them undet the Mine and Minaral (Regulation and Development) Act, Act 67 of 195? (the act. ). Dead Rent to be precise is sought to be collected from them under rules promulgated on September, 4, 1977. The rules are known as Mineral concessions rules of 1966 (The Rule ). Rule 10 of the Rules pertains to dead rent and is substituted from March 25, 1977. The rule prescribed levy of dead rent if it is highter than the royalty payable on minerals removed. Schedule I to Rule ten prescribes sates for seignorage (royalty) fee. Schedule II pertains to rates of dead rent when levied.

( 2 ) IN the Govt of India Act 1935, the subject of mines and minerals were dealt in Entry 36 of the Federal Legislature List I and Entry 23 of the Provincial Legislature List II in the seventh Schedule of the Act together with the subject of "oil Fields". In the constitution of India, oil fields and pstroleum products are separately dealt in Entry 53 of Lilt I, in the 1935 Act, unless it was delcared by Federal Law to Jbe expedient in the public interest, the Provincial Legislature vested the power to legislate on the subject of mines and minerals. Similar position is maintaining in the Constitution in Entry 54 of List I to the State, the parliament if it declares expedient in public interest, may legislate 00 the subject of minor minerals, otherwise minor minerals are enumerated in Entry 23 of list of state List. Th Indian Parliament in Sec. 2 of the Act declared that the Union to control "mines and regulate department of minerals. Having declared the Praliament enforced the Act from June 1st, 1958; The Act was amended by the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Amendment Act 56 of 1972 (Amending Act)- The amending provisions were enforced from september. 12, 1972. In that amendment, Secs. 4-A, 9-A, 13-A 18-A and 23-A and the IIIrd Schedule were introduced, Secs. 6, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 25, 28, were amended. The Act in Sec. 14 recites Secs. 4 to 13 are not applicable to minor minerals. Therefore, in considering the numerous questions raised by the lessees in the above cases, Secs. 4 to 13 are excluded from com (deration except where the subject for purpose of analogy is deemed relevant.

( 3 ) THE debate in the cases covered wide-ranging subjects particularly, the learned counsel appearing for the black granite lessees argued that dead rent in the Act or in the rules is not defined ; That dead rent is a tax, that it is an impost. That dead rent is also "financial burden". Tha last of the words "financial burden" were repeatedly uttered to mean a tax within the meaning of Art. 265 or the word "taxation" in item 28 of Art. 366 of the Constitution of India. In that sense, it was also argued royalty was a tax or an impost and a financial burden. That no tax, fee or financial burden can be imposed by the Parliament through subordinate legislation. It was contended delegation to levy a tax could not have been made under the Constitution unless expressly the Parliament in the Act enabled the impost or the levy of financial burden. The contrary position was assumed by the Andhra Pradesh State Government, so it was said, and dead rent was imposed on lessees by recourse to subordinate















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top