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 brick-earth is a minor mineral under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the relevant State rules; (ii) whether royalty on brick-earth extracted under the Punjab Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1964 is a tax or a contractual payment, and whether Section 15 of the Act authorises the State Government to provide for such royalty; (iii) whether the petitioners could obtain relief in writ jurisdiction on the disputed question whether the minor mineral rights in the lands vested in the State or in private owners.
Issue (i): Whether brick-earth is a minor mineral under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the relevant State rules.
Analysis: Brick-earth had been expressly declared a minor mineral by the Central Government notification issued under Section 3(e) of the Act. Once so notified, it fell within the statutory definition and within the scheme under which the State Government could frame rules in relation to minor minerals.
Conclusion: Brick-earth is a minor mineral.
Issue (ii): Whether royalty on brick-earth extracted under the Punjab Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1964 is a tax or a contractual payment, and whether Section 15 of the Act authorises the State Government to provide for such royalty.
Analysis: Royalty was treated as a payment made by the holder of a mining lease to the owner of the mineral for the privilege of extraction, computed on the quantity actually removed. It was held to be more akin to rent or contractual consideration than to a compulsory tax. The statutory scheme, especially Sections 9, 14 and 15 of the Act, together with the existing and continued rule-making framework for minor minerals, was held to permit the State to regulate mining leases and to include royalty as a condition of such leases.
Conclusion: Royalty on minor minerals was held to be valid and not a tax, and Rule 20 of the Punjab Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1964 was upheld.
Issue (iii): Whether the petitioners could obtain relief in writ jurisdiction on the disputed question whether the minor mineral rights in the lands vested in the State or in private owners.
Analysis: The ownership of mineral rights depended on disputed facts arising from the records of rights and related village entries. Such rival claims were held not fit for determination in proceedings under Articles 226 and 227, and the parties were left to work out their remedies before the civil court.
Conclusion: The disputed ownership issue was not decided in writ jurisdiction.
Final Conclusion: The petitions failed because brick-earth was a notified minor mineral, royalty under the Punjab rules was upheld as a permissible mineral-concession charge rather than a tax, and the factual dispute over mineral ownership could not be resolved in the writ proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: Royalty payable under a mining lease for minor minerals vesting in the State is a contractual consideration or rent for the privilege of extraction, not a tax, and may validly be provided for by rules framed under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957.
TaxTMI 
