State cess on mining royalty held unconstitutional where it effectively taxed royalty governed by Central mineral law

A cess described as land revenue could not be sustained when, in substance, it was imposed on royalty payable under a Central mining law. The Court treated royalty as distinct from land revenue and held that the State could not recast royalty as land revenue to impose an additional burden where the Central legislation occupied the field and controlled royalty and mineral development. The levy was therefore beyond the State Legislature's competence, could not be supported as a tax on land under Entry 49 of List II, and was unconstitutional. The strike-down operated prospectively, with no refund of sums already collected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the local cess levied on royalty under section 115 of the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958, as amended, was within the competence of the State Legislature and could be sustained either as a tax on land under Entry 49 of List II or as a levy unaffected by section 9 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957.

Analysis: The levy was examined in its true nature and substance, not by the label given to it in the statute. Royalty under the mining lease was payable on minerals extracted and was governed by the Central legislation, which fixed the rate and controlled the field of mineral development. The explanation added to section 115 enlarged "land revenue" so as to include royalty, but royalty was held to be distinct from land revenue properly so called. A cess imposed on royalty was therefore not a tax directly on land as a unit, but a tax on royalty itself. Since the relevant Central Act occupied the field in respect of royalty and mineral development, the State Legislature could not, by recasting royalty as land revenue, impose an additional burden on it. The levy also could not be upheld under Entry 49 because it was not a direct tax on land.

Conclusion: The cess on royalty was beyond the competence of the State Legislature and was unconstitutional. The levy was struck down prospectively, with no refund of amounts already collected.

Ratio Decidendi: A State levy described as a cess on land revenue cannot be sustained under Entry 49 of List II when, in substance, it is a tax on royalty payable under a Central mining law that occupies the field and controls the rate of royalty.

---