Today, On 23rd October, the Supreme Court ruled that state governments can tax and regulate industrial alcohol, with Justice BV Nagarathna dissenting. She argued that such authority undermines uniform development and emphasized that only the Union government can legislate on this issue. The majority found industrial alcohol included under “intoxicating liquor.”
![[Breaking]‘Ignores Macro-Economic Impact’: Centre Seeks Review of Supreme Court’s 8:1 Ruling Upholding Power of States to Tax Minerals](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Mineral-Royalty-Case.jpg?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Chandrachud, today ruled on retrospective taxation of mining activities, allowing states to renew tax demands from April 1, 2005. The ruling recognizes states’ authority to tax mineral rights under List II, while emphasizing the need for balanced federalism. However, dissenting Justice Nagarathna expressed concerns about potential negative economic impacts.
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.
![[Breaking] Delhi Vs Centre: AM Singhvi Asks CJI for Urgent Listing on Delhi Govt Services Control](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/image-13-4.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Senior Advocate AM Singhvi today (9th July) urged Chief Justice of India to urgently consider the issue of Delhi Government services control, emphasizing the need for a third judgment to resolve the dispute. The Delhi government’s plea challenging the central government’s law, which gives pre-eminence to the lieutenant governor, has led to a significant power struggle.
![BREAKING | [Day 5] 9-Judge Bench Reserves Verdict on Private Properties as Community Resources](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/MicrosoftTeams-image-34.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Today (1st May): The Supreme Court’s nine-judge bench reserved its verdict on whether private properties can be considered community resources under Article 39(b) of the Constitution. The case involves a challenge against Chapter VIII-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) Act, centered on the state’s power to acquire buildings for restoration. This ongoing case involves 16 petitions and has been a subject of deliberation since 1992.
Today(on 26th April)The Supreme Court has agreed to review the Delhi government’s challenge against a central law granting more power to the lieutenant governor over administrative services. The Delhi government emphasizes the urgent need for a decision as the matter has disrupted administration. The court is currently occupied with another case but recognizes the importance of the plea.
Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud on 23rd April noted the situation where tenants hold onto properties and landlords struggle with maintenance costs.The Supreme Court is reviewing a Maharashtra law aimed at acquiring old, unsafe buildings where tenants refuse to vacate and landlords lack funds for repairs.
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.