TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, on a true construction of section 30A of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the notification issued thereunder, pre-1949 coal mining leases were liable to pay royalty at the higher contractual rate or only at the rate of 5% prescribed under section 9(1) read with the Second Schedule.
Analysis: Section 30A suspended the automatic application of sections 9(1) and 16(1) to pre-1949 coal leases and empowered the Central Government to apply those provisions by notification with such exceptions or modifications as might be specified. The notification of 29 December 1961, read in the context of the statutory scheme and the object of section 30A, was a modification of the 5% rate under section 9(1) and the Second Schedule. It could not be construed as authorising recovery of royalty at a rate higher than the statutory rate, because such a construction would exceed the power conferred by section 30A and frustrate the purpose of phasing in the increased royalty burden.
Conclusion: The notification did not permit the State to recover royalty at the higher lease rate. The company was liable only at the modified statutory rate, and the State's demand at the contractual rate was invalid.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
