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

2011 Supreme(SC) 334

SWATANTER KUMAR, S. H. KAPADIA, K. S. P. RADHAKRISHNAN
Mineral Area Development Authority etc. – Appellant
Versus
Steel Authority of India – Respondent


O R D E R

1. Having heard the matter(s) for considerable length of time, we are of the view that the matter needs to be considered by the Bench of Nine Judges. The questions of law to be decided by the larger Bench are as follows:

1. Whether `royalty' determined under Sections 9/15(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 (Act 67 of 1957, as amended) is in the nature of tax?

2. Can the State Legislature while levying a tax on land under Entry 49 List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution adopt a measure of tax based on the value of the produce of land? If yes, then would the Constitutional position be any different insofar as the tax on land is imposed on mining land on account of Entry 50 List II and its interrelation with Entry 54 List I?










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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top