The Supreme Court held that enhanced royalty on iron ore cannot be avoided merely because an e-auction agreement predated the royalty revision. The Court clarified that royalty liability arises upon removal or dispatch of minerals, and statutory amendments override contrary contractual arrangements under mining law.
A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court Today (Oct 4) rejected review petitions against its judgment which held that royalty paid by mining operators to the Central government is not a tax and that states have the power to levy cesses on mining and mineral-use activities. Justice Nagarathna dissented from the majority and issued notice on the review petitions.
![[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)
