The Central government Today (July 31st) opposed states’ plea in the Supreme Court for a refund of royalty levied on mines since 1989, arguing it would burden public units by over Rs 70,000 crore. The Supreme Court’s recent ruling stated royalty is not a tax, and states sought retrospective application, which the Centre opposed.
!["National Wealth Redistribution Proposal is 'Juvenile'": SG | 9-Judge Bench | Nature of Private Property [Day 4]](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/image-106.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Supreme Court Yesterday (April 25th) made it clear that it is “subservient” to the historic 13-judge bench verdict in the Kesavananda Bharati case which upheld a part of Article 31C of the Constitution meant to save laws if they are enacted to subserve “common good” by taking over material resources including private assets.
On 4th April: Attorney General R. Venketaramani stressed the precedence of Union List’s Entry 52 over State List’s Entry 24 in regulating industrial alcohol for national welfare. The 9-judge bench continued hearing arguments on state regulation of industrial alcohol. Key points included state governments’ authority and the interpretation of “intoxicating liquor” under the Constitution’s provisions, with the next hearing set for April 9, 2024.
The Supreme Court Today reserved judgment on whether mineral royalties are considered a tax under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act of 1957. The nine-judge bench, led by CJI DY Chandrachud, engaged in extensive deliberations over eight days, addressing appeals from state governments, mining entities, and public sector undertakings. This decision is highly anticipated for its potential impact on India’s regulatory landscape.
On 5th March (Tueday): In a 9-judge bench hearing regarding mineral rights taxation, the Chief Justice of India emphasized that once a royalty is fixed, states cannot demand beyond the established framework. The discussion deepened into the interaction between state and Union legislative powers over mineral resources, emphasizing the need for precision in navigating competing national interests and state taxation powers.__JETPACK_AI_ERROR__
Day-3 | 9-Judge Bench- The Supreme Court clarified that the power to impose a tax on mineral rights lies with the states, not the Parliament, and emphasized the need to preserve this authority. The court is deliberating on whether the royalty collected by the Centre on mining leases qualifies as a tax. The hearing will resume on March 5.