Mining lease treated as immovable property lease; royalty was not purchase price, so purchase tax did not apply.

A mining grant conferring the right to enter land, work limestone, use the surface as necessary, and remove minerals was treated as a lease of immovable property under section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, not as a licence or agreement to sell. The absence of exclusive possession of the whole area did not change that character. Because the arrangement was a lease, royalty paid under it was consideration for the lease and not the purchase price of goods. As there was no underlying sale or purchase, the conditions for levy under section 6-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 were not met, and sales tax could not be imposed on the royalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the mining leases executed in favour of the petitioners were leases of immovable property or were merely licences or agreements to sell limestone; (ii) Whether the royalty paid under such leases was the purchase price so as to attract section 6-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Issue (i): Whether the mining leases executed in favour of the petitioners were leases of immovable property or were merely licences or agreements to sell limestone.

Analysis: The leases were granted in the prescribed form under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and conferred rights to enter upon the land, carry on mining operations, use the surface to the extent necessary, and remove the mineral, subject to restrictions and reservation of rights. Applying the settled distinction between a mining lease and a licence, the Court held that such a transaction is, in substance, a transfer of a right to enjoy immovable property within section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The absence of exclusive possession of the whole area did not alter the legal character of the grant, because a mineral-bearing lease may still be worked as an immovable-property lease.

Conclusion: The leases were held to be leases of immovable property and not licences or agreements to sell.

Issue (ii): Whether the royalty paid under such leases was the purchase price so as to attract section 6-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Analysis: Section 6-A applies only where a dealer purchases goods from a non-registered dealer and consumes them in manufacture or otherwise. Since the mining arrangement was held to be a lease, the limestone extracted by the lessees was not purchased from the State. The royalty was treated as consideration for the lease and as rent or the lessor's share in the produce, not as sale price or purchase price. In the absence of any sale or purchase, the statutory conditions for levy under section 6-A were not satisfied.

Conclusion: Royalty was not purchase price and section 6-A was held inapplicable.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded and sales tax could not be levied on the royalty paid under the mining leases.

Ratio Decidendi: A mining grant conferring the right to work minerals and to use the land to the extent necessary for that purpose is a lease of immovable property; royalty under such a lease is not purchase price, and purchase tax provisions cannot be invoked in the absence of an underlying sale or purchase.

---