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: (i) Whether the District Mineral Foundations could be treated as established retrospectively from 12 January 2015. (ii) Whether contribution to the District Mineral Foundation could be demanded with effect from 12 January 2015, and if not, what was the correct commencement date for different categories of mineral lease holders. (iii) Whether the notification dated 31 August 2016 substituting the commencement clause and making payment effective from 12 January 2015 was valid.
Issue (i): Whether the District Mineral Foundations could be treated as established retrospectively from 12 January 2015.
Analysis: Section 9B of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 required the State Government to establish the District Mineral Foundation by notification. The power to fix the date of establishment lay with the State Government, and the Court held that a notification stating that the Foundation shall be deemed to have come into existence from 12 January 2015 did not necessarily amount to impermissible retrospective operation. Even if the date was anterior to the notification, no vested right was prejudicially affected. The validity of the notifications could also be saved by reading them as operating from the date of publication.
Conclusion: The District Mineral Foundations were not invalidly established merely because some notifications referred to 12 January 2015, and the notifications were not struck down on this ground.
Issue (ii): Whether contribution to the District Mineral Foundation could be demanded with effect from 12 January 2015, and if not, what was the correct commencement date for different categories of mineral lease holders.
Analysis: The Court held that fixing only the maximum ceiling of contribution under Section 9B was not enough; the rate had to be specifically prescribed before any compulsory contribution could be enforced. Since the Central Government prescribed the rate for minerals other than coal, lignite and sand for stowing only on 17 September 2015, contribution for that category could not be demanded from 12 January 2015 and became payable only from 17 September 2015. For coal, lignite and sand for stowing, the applicable notification of 20 October 2015 expressly tied payment to the later of the notification date or the date of establishment of the District Mineral Foundation, so payment could not be forced from 12 January 2015. The Court also rejected the contention that no payment could be made before the Foundation was created, holding that the liability existed once the rate was notified and the delayed establishment of the fund could not defeat the statutory object.
Conclusion: Contribution could not be insisted upon from 12 January 2015. For minerals other than coal, lignite and sand for stowing, the effective date was 17 September 2015. For coal, lignite and sand for stowing, the effective date was 20 October 2015 or the date of establishment of the District Mineral Foundation, whichever was later.
Issue (iii): Whether the notification dated 31 August 2016 amending the commencement clause and making payment effective from 12 January 2015 was valid.
Analysis: The amended notification sought to impose a retroactive obligation to pay with effect from 12 January 2015. The Court held that the rule-making power under the Act did not authorise such retrospective imposition of liability. The amendment was therefore beyond the Central Government's delegated power and could not stand.
Conclusion: The notification dated 31 August 2016 was invalid and was struck down.
Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme sustained the establishment of the District Mineral Foundation and the levy of contribution, but only from the dates when the contribution rates were validly prescribed. The attempt to impose payment from 12 January 2015 was rejected, and the retroactive amendment of 31 August 2016 was invalidated.
Ratio Decidendi: A subordinate fiscal levy cannot be enforced retrospectively unless the parent statute clearly authorises such operation, and the mere fixation of a maximum ceiling is insufficient where the actual rate of compulsory contribution has not yet been validly prescribed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
