Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Main Point: Seigniorage collected is primarily linked to actual mineral removal, and refunds are possible if the mineral is not fully extracted, especially when no removal occurs due to circumstances like natural calamities ["C. Praveen Karthick VS Secretary to Government, Industries Department, State of Tamil Nadu - Madras"], ["Sri Sai Prabha Granites vs State Of Andhra Pradesh - Andhra Pradesh"].
Nature and Legal Status of Seigniorage - Several sources emphasize that seigniorage is a prerogative levy, not a general tax, and is tied to the right of mineral extraction on public land. It is not levied on private land where mineral rights are privately owned. ["Crystal Granites Limited VS State of Kerala Represented by the Secretary, Department of Mining - Kerala"], ["M/S CRYSTAL GRANITES LIMITED vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"] highlight that seigniorage is not a tax levied by the state but a fee for the right to extract minerals from government land, and it is not applicable where mining rights are granted on private property.
Main Point: Seigniorage is a prerogative levy on public land, not a refundable tax, and its collection depends on the right to extract minerals from government land.
Collection and Variability of Seigniorage - The fee is assessed based on the volume of mineral excavated, and it varies with the quantity mined. It is not fixed and depends on actual extraction. ["Anumolu Seskngiri Rao, represented by his power of Attorney Sri Koteswara Rao VS District Revenue Officer, Krishna District, Collector Office, Chilakalapadi - Andhra Pradesh"] states: Seigniorage fee is not fixed. It varies according to the quantity of the metal that is extracted. Additionally, the collection process involves auction or contractual arrangements, and sometimes, if mining is unauthorized or outside lease terms, collection may be illegal or contested. ["A. P. Small Scale Granite Industries association, Hyderabad VS Government Of A. P. , Industries and Commerce (Mines) Dept. - Andhra Pradesh"], ["Larsen & Toubro Limited, rep. by its Manager VS Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Anantapur - Andhra Pradesh"].
Main Point: Seigniorage is variable, linked to actual mineral quantity, and collection is subject to legal and procedural compliance.
Situations Excluding or Allowing Refunds - The law and judicial interpretations suggest that refunds are permissible when no mineral is removed or when circumstances prevent full extraction (e.g., natural calamities). ["C. Praveen Karthick VS Secretary to Government, Industries Department, State of Tamil Nadu - Madras"] and ["Sri Sai Prabha Granites vs State Of Andhra Pradesh - Andhra Pradesh"] support that refunds can be granted for unextracted mineral quantities. Conversely, if mineral extraction occurs unlawfully or outside the lease, collection may be deemed illegal or non-refundable.
Main Point: Refunds are possible when mineral has not been extracted due to legitimate reasons; illegal extraction or sale outside authorized terms negates refund rights.
Conclusion - Based on the sources, seigniorage collected for mining from public property is not inherently refundable if the mineral has not been fully collected. However, since seigniorage is payable only on actual extraction or consumption, refunds are permissible when no mineral is removed or in cases of natural hindrance, provided the collection was not made unlawfully. The collection depends on legal compliance, actual mineral removal, and contractual arrangements.
In the mining industry, particularly when dealing with public property, leaseholders often face unexpected challenges. What happens if you pay seigniorage fees upfront for anticipated mineral extraction, but end up collecting less than expected? The pressing question is: Whether seigniorage collected for mining mineral from public property is refundable when quantity of mineral had not been collected in full?
This issue arises frequently under India's mineral concession frameworks, governed by laws like the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) and state-specific rules. While seigniorage—typically levied on minor minerals from government lands—provides revenue to the state, its refundability hinges on its legal character and statutory provisions. This post breaks down the legal landscape, drawing from key judgments and principles to offer clarity.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information based on legal precedents and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your specific situation.
Seigniorage is a state-imposed charge on the extraction of minor minerals from public lands, distinct from royalty on major minerals. As clarified in relevant cases, Enterprising Enterprises Private Ltd. , Madras VS Government Of A. P. - 2003 Supreme(AP) 430 notes: If it is a major mineral, royalty will be levied and if it is a minor mineral, seigniorage will be levied... the amounts to be paid under royalty and seigniorage are of the same nature. The only difference is the nature of the mineral.
It's often characterized as a fee for the privilege of extraction or a levy on mineral rights, rather than a direct price per unit extracted. In State Of H. P. VS Gujarat Ambuja Cement LTD. - 2005 5 Supreme 161, the court distinguishes: Royalty is the consideration paid for minerals extracted, whereas dead rent or surface rent are fixed amounts for the lease area... royalty and dead rent are distinct from taxes or fees.
This nature is crucial. When imposed as a valid tax or fee on land or mineral rights, payment is obligatory regardless of output. Courts emphasize government ownership of sub-soil minerals, even on patta lands, upholding demands for full payment The Associated Cement Companies Limited VS The State of Tamil Nadu - 2015 Supreme(Mad) 2089.
The main legal finding is clear: Seigniorage collected by the state is generally not refundable solely because the quantity extracted is less than anticipated, provided the levy was validly imposed. State Of H. P. VS Gujarat Ambuja Cement LTD. - 2005 5 Supreme 161 explains that such levies are on the land or mineral rights, and the method of quantification (by area, value, or quantity) does not alter the character of the levy as a tax or fee.
Refunds aren't automatic for shortfalls. Validity depends on statutory authority, not production volume. In L. Venkateswara Rao VS Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. - 1993 0 Supreme(AP) 292, collections like forest development tax are upheld as additional levies, payable irrespective of yield.
While shortfalls alone don't justify refunds, certain scenarios may lead to them:
Additionally, M/s KVRECPL - IRP Infra Tech (DI), Vs The Union distinguishes seigniorage from District Mineral Foundation (DMF) fees, stressing precise legal terminology for challenges.
State rules reinforce this. Under A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, lessees pay dead rent or seigniorage per lease terms, binding regardless of extraction Enterprising Enterprises Private Ltd. , Madras VS Government Of A. P. - 2003 Supreme(AP) 430. The Madras High Court upheld tender-cum-auction systems for granite leases, allowing seigniorage alongside lease amounts M/s. Gem Granites, Chennai VS The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary to Government Industries Department - 2010 Supreme(Mad) 3478: besides the lease amount, the State Government is entitled to collect seigniorage fee.
Government minerals rights prevail, even subsurface on private lands—no compensation for unextracted minerals to landowners General Manager VS Shanmughavel Chettiar - 2001 Supreme(Mad) 77. Full Bench decisions affirm royalties to government for quarrying leases Enterprising Enterprises Private Ltd. , Madras VS Government Of A. P. - 2003 Supreme(AP) 430.
In Joydeep Goala VS State of Assam through the Comm. and Secy. to the Govt. of Assam - 2019 Supreme(Gau) 1229, definitions under rules clarify 'mining operations' as winning minerals, aiding disputes over what triggers payment.
For miners, proactive compliance and legal scrutiny of demands are vital. As mineral laws evolve, staying informed prevents costly disputes.
References:- State Of H. P. VS Gujarat Ambuja Cement LTD. - 2005 5 Supreme 161- L. Venkateswara Rao VS Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. - 1993 0 Supreme(AP) 292- R. Pampapathi VS State of Karnataka - 1996 0 Supreme(Kar) 341- Enterprising Enterprises Private Ltd. , Madras VS Government Of A. P. - 2003 Supreme(AP) 430- Siva Sai Constructions vs State Of Andhra Pradesh - 2025 Supreme(AP) 70- And others cited inline.
#MiningLaw #Seigniorage #MineralRights
If it is a major mineral, royalty will be levied and if it is a minor mineral, seigniorage will be levied. ... Their lordships in the said judgment dealt with the. definition of royalty, dead rent, seigniorage fee etc. It is not in dispute that the amounts to be paid under royalty and seigniorage are of the same nature. The only difference is the nature of the mineral. ... Therefore, it is felt imperative for the State to demand the minimum guaranteed amount, notwiths....
We do not see any force in the contention of the learned Counsel.Under the provisions of the Act and the Rules, unauthorised mining of minerals whether they be minor minerals or other minerals, is strictly prohibited. The object is to check illicit quarrying of minor minerals. ... Transit forms from 03.03.2023 were issued by M/s.Amigos Minerals and the requisite amounts would be collected by it like Seigniorage fee, DMF and MERIT, Consideration amount and IT. ... and the Quantity of #H....
DEY and CO., AIR1979 SC 1669, (1979)3 SCC106, [1979]3 SCR18 the Supreme Court considered the question whether a mining lease is a 'Lease' as defined in Section 105 of Transfer of Property Act, or whether it was a contract to sell mineral. ... The question is, even if mining ore/mineral is to be treated as a disposal by way of sale or otherwise, whether the State Legislature has competence to levy forest development tax on the royalty amount. ... The 'right to enjoy im....
... (e) In case, the right of collection of seigniorage fee is not disposed off in Sealed Tender cum Public Auction or even if it is disposed off but the authorized Agent does not perform due to any reason, the Sectors are deemed to have not been notified for public Auction and the ... At no stage, the seigniorage fee will be directly collected by the department. Thus, at no instance, this office had collected double the s....
... ( 54 ) WE do not see any force in the contention of the learned Counsel. Under the provisions of the Act and the Rules, unauthorised mining of minerals whether they be minor minerals or other minerals, is strictly prohibited. ... Stating that the expressions "public policy", "opposed to public policy" or "contrary to public policy" are incapable of precise definitions, the learned Judges observed:"public policy, however, is not the policy of a pa....
This Court finds that what is being collected are the District Mineral Foundation fees and State Mineral Exploration Trust charges and not seignorage. The word „seigniorage‟ is a word of specific legal meaning. ... Therefore, it is clear that what is been collected under this new G.O. and in terms of sections 9 (B) and 9 (C) is not seigniorage. ... Even the Rules which are framed by G.O.Ms.No.36 dated 14.03.2016 states that what is to be co....
It is not a general levy in respect of mineral rights granted by the State Government and is not levied or collected in cases where mining rights are granted in respect of lands under private ownership. This makes it in the nature of a prerogative levy. ... It is contended that, the levy of seignorage on the quantity of metal mined from the Government lands, over and above the Royalty amounts already collected by the Government on the said quantity o....
Mere digging of earth for a purpose, not connected with the mining activity cannot result in obligation to pay the seigniorage fee or dead rent." ... The word "mining" is not precisely defined under any enactment Section 3(d) of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, defines the expression, "mining operations", "as any operation undertaken for the purpose of winning any mineral". ... 1 held that levying seigniorage fee by the ....
on Earth / Mineral/ Gravel / Soil which is being excavated for the purpose of levelling wherein there is no winning over the mineral for the purpose of sale does not attract the concept of mining as stated in the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder ... or in possession of any mineral including the processed mineral, he shall not withstanding anything contained in sub-rule(1) be liable to pay five times of normal #HL_ST....
It is not a general levy in respect of mineral rights granted by the State Government and is not levied or collected in cases where mining rights are granted in respect of lands under private ownership. This makes it in the nature of a prerogative levy. ... It is contended that, the levy of seignorage on the quantity of metal mined from the Government lands, over and above the Royalty amounts already collected by the Government on the said quantity o....
Rule 2(q) defines ‘mineral concession’ to mean a mining lease or a mining contract or permit in respect of minor mineral and includes quarrying permits and any other mineral concession permitting the mining of minor mineral. As per Rule 2(u), ‘mining operations’ has been defined to mean any operation carried out for the purpose of winning any mineral excerpt mineral oils whereas Rule 2(y) defines ‘mining permit’ as a mineral concession other than a lease granted for a specified quantity of minor minerals to be extracted/collected within a specified period not exceeding two years in....
It is not out of place to mention that the value of the mineral removed is not demanded and the royalty at a nominal rate is demanded from the holder of the lease. The pattadar of Rayotwari land is always given the surface right only over the land i.e., to use the surface of the land and all the minerals whether it is a minor mineral, or a major mineral or a highly valuable mineral available in the land belong to the Government. Therefore, the Courts have rightly upheld that the minerals belong to the Government and that the demand for 100% is valid and enforceable. Since, the winn....
It is fairly well settled by catena of decisions that the lease amount remitted by the Appellant is the amount quoted by the Appellant for obtaining lease rights for the quarry and to enter the premises for carrying on quarrying operation. As per Section 15(3) of MMDR Act, the holder of a mining lease or any other mineral concession granted under any rule made under sub-section (1) shall pay royalty or dead rent which ever is more in respect of minor minerals removed or consumed by him or his agent, manager, etc. Hence, besides the lease amount, the State Government is entitled to collect se....
We also proceed on the basis that granite is a mineral within the meaning of Section 3(e) of the Act. This judgment does not, in any way, support the case of the claimants, but has been relied on by the reference court to hold that the claimants are entitled for the value of the minerals. By paying royalty and seigniorage fee to the Government, the mining lease holder becomes the owner of the mineral and is free to sell them in the domestic market or export the same only as per the law made by the competent authority." When the mining lease is granted and royalty and seigniorage fe....
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
