TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether Section 9(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 was ultra vires or suffered from excessive delegation. (ii) Whether the Notification dated 1 August 1991 enhancing royalty on coal was beyond the scope of Section 9(3), or was a colourable, arbitrary or confiscatory exercise of power.
Issue (i): Whether Section 9(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 was ultra vires or suffered from excessive delegation.
Analysis: The Act was held to fall within Parliament's legislative field under Entry 54 of List I, and royalty under the statutory scheme was treated as part of the Union-controlled regime for regulation and development of mines and minerals. The provision did not confer unguided power: the Second Schedule fixed the base rates, the enhancement power was limited by the statutory interval for revision, and the notification-making power remained subject to parliamentary control under the laying provision. The Court also rejected the contention that the State List entry relating to mineral rights could sustain the challenge, and found no vice of excessive delegation.
Conclusion: Section 9(3) was upheld and the challenge failed, in favour of Revenue.
Issue (ii): Whether the Notification dated 1 August 1991 enhancing royalty on coal was beyond the scope of Section 9(3), or was a colourable, arbitrary or confiscatory exercise of power.
Analysis: The Court held that enhancement of royalty is integrally connected with mineral development because royalty rates must remain uniform and responsive to inflation, changed value of money, and the need for systematic development of minerals. The fact that the revision also helped offset State revenue loss did not make the notification extraneous, because the statutory power was exercised to revise royalty after a long gap and the motive did not vitiate an otherwise authorised legislative act. The challenge of colourable exercise failed because the Central Government had power to act under Section 9(3), and the plea of arbitrariness or confiscation was unsupported by material showing closure of business or other factual prejudice.
Conclusion: The Notification was held to be within Section 9(3) and neither colourable nor arbitrary or confiscatory, in favour of Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The High Court's decision striking down the Notification was set aside, and the challenges to the enhancement of royalty were rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Where Parliament has fixed royalty under a mineral-regulatory statute and has authorised the Central Government to revise it within a controlled scheme, an enhancement notification issued to maintain a uniform and workable royalty structure connected with mineral development is valid unless it is shown to be outside the statutory purpose or manifestly arbitrary.
TaxTMI 
