Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K.Agrawal
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Mining, Mantralaya – Respondent
ORDER :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. Since common question of law and fact is involved in these two writ petitions, except the period of demand, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common order.
W.P.(C)No.1691/2013
2. Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner herein seeks to challenge the order dated 2-9-2013 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Collector (Mining Department), Korba by which the petitioner SECL has been directed to pay an additional amount of ₹ 7,34,135-26 towards royalty.
W.P.(C)No.1645/2013
3. Similarly, the petitioner seeks to challenge the orders dated 12-6-2013 (Annexure P-2) and 31-8-2013 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Collector (Mining Department), Korba by which the petitioner SECL has been directed to pay an additional amount of ₹8,09,163-78 towards royalty.
4. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop: -
[In order to decide the lis between the parties, facts of W.P.(C) No.1691/2013 are being taken as lead case.]
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner Company consequent to E-Auction, sold different crates of coal as elucidated in Annexure P-3 at the rate as reflected in the
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.
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.
The demands raised by the Deputy Director of Mines were found to be unsustainable in the eye of law, in view of the law laid down in National Mineral Development Corporation Limited v. State of M.P.,....
(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....
Contractors are liable to pay royalties only upon extraction of minerals, not based on purchasing, and may not be compelled to produce certificates without proper liability.
The methodology for computing royalty under the MMDR Act is a policy decision, and courts should exercise restraint in reviewing such economic policies unless they violate constitutional provisions.
The main legal point established is that interest on delayed payment of royalty is compensatory in nature and can only be imposed when legitimate dues are withheld. The demand for interest must be ju....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
