SUPREME COURT’s RULING ON STATE TAXATION OF MINERAL RIGHTS

TAG: GS 2: POLITY

THE CONTEXT: The Supreme Court of India has clarified the extent of state powers in the realm of mineral taxation.

EXPLANATION:

  • A nine-judge bench affirmed that states have the authority to levy taxes on mineral rights, independent of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 (MMDR Act).
  • This decision establishes that royalties and dead rent do not fulfill the characteristics of a tax, and therefore, they do not fall under the purview of the MMDR Act.

Historical Context and Legal Background

  • The matter was referred to a nine-judge bench in 2011 due to conflicts in previous judgments by five-judge and seven-judge benches in related cases.
  • The ruling came from a nine-judge constitution bench, with an 8:1 majority, clarifying the extent of state powers in mineral taxation.
  • Chief Justice of India authored the majority judgment, which was supported by seven other justices, with Justice BV Nagarathna providing the lone dissenting opinion.

Examination of Key Questions

  • The bench examined two critical questions:
    • Whether royalties on mining leases can be considered a tax.
    • Whether states have the power to levy royalty/tax on mineral rights post-enactment of the MMDR Act.

Ruling and Implications

  • State Taxing Powers Affirmed
    • The Supreme Court’s ruling affirmed that states can levy taxes on mineral rights, potentially leading to varied tax regimes across India.
    • This decision underscores the autonomy of states in managing their mineral resources and fiscal policies related to these resources.
    • The court concluded that royalties and dead rent do not meet the criteria of a tax, thereby allowing states to continue imposing and collecting taxes on mineral-bearing lands.
  • Clarification on Royalty and Taxation
    • The judgment clarified that royalty under Section 9 of the MMDR Act is not considered a tax.
    • The bench overruled a previous judgment in the India Cements case, which had held royalty as a tax.
    • The court also found that the MMDR Act does not impose limitations on states’ taxing powers.

Constitutional Provisions and Entries

  • The court examined the constitutional entries related to taxation:
    • Entry 50 List II (State List) pertains to states’ taxing powers on mineral rights. The court noted that the term “limitation” in this entry does not imply a transfer of taxing power to the Parliament.
    • Entry 54 List I (Union List) pertains to the Union’s power over minerals but is regulatory and does not include taxing authority.
    • Entry 49 List II (State List) includes “land,” which encompasses mineral-bearing lands, thereby granting states the competence to tax such lands.

Arguments Presented

  • States’ Arguments
    • Senior Advocate representing Jharkhand, argued that the term “limitation” in Entry 50 List II should not imply a transfer of taxing power to the Parliament.
    • Senior Advocate representing the Mineral Development Authority of Uttar Pradesh, emphasized that Entry 50 List II limits states’ authority without enabling Parliament to levy taxes on mineral rights.
  • Central Government’s Arguments
    • The Union contended that Entry 50 List II inherently limits state powers and should be interpreted broadly to align with the holistic management of national minerals.
    • They argued that the MMDR Act, by its existence, limits state taxing powers.

Future Directions

  • The Supreme Court’s ruling has far-reaching implications for state taxation of mineral rights.
  • The bench ruled that state legislatures have the competence to tax lands containing minerals and can use the yield of mineral-bearing land as a measure for taxation.
  • This decision allows states to enact and enforce tax laws on mineral-bearing lands without conflicting with the MMDR Act.

Implementation and Compliance

  • The Supreme Court has directed the relevant authorities to proceed with implementing this judgment, ensuring compliance with the new legal framework established by this decision.
  • On July 31, the top court will consider the issue of recovery of taxes levied by the central government to date on minerals and mines.

SOURCE: https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/royalty-not-tax-sc-grants-states-power-to-levy-taxes-on-mineral-rights-124072500372_1.html

Spread the Word