Mineral land tax and severability: integrated royalty-dead rent levy exceeded State competence, with prospective invalidity only.

Section 3 of the Rajasthan Land Tax Act, 1985 imposed tax on mineral-bearing lands by reference to annual value based on royalty or dead rent. The levy was treated as beyond State legislative competence because it was materially identical to earlier royalty-based mineral taxes, and the Act's dead-rent definition also operated as royalty for the levy. As royalty and dead rent formed a single integrated charging scheme, severance was unavailable because substituting one basis for another would rewrite the legislative design. Invalidity was confined prospectively, so past collections were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 3 of the Rajasthan Land Tax Act, 1985, imposing a tax on mineral-bearing lands by reference to annual value based on royalty or dead rent, was within the legislative competence of the State and, if not, whether the invalid component could be severed and the declaration of invalidity confined prospectively.

Analysis: The levy was held to be materially identical to earlier mineral royalty-based taxes already found beyond State competence. The Court held that the definition of dead rent, as framed in the Act, also amounted to royalty for the purpose of the levy, so the charge based on dead rent suffered from the same vice as the charge based on royalty. The structure of the provision showed a single integrated scheme in which royalty and dead rent were alternatives within one charging mechanism, and the Court found that the invalid portion could not be severed without altering the legislative design. Applying the doctrine of severability, the Court held that the legislation could not be rewritten by substituting dead rent as the basis of tax.

Conclusion: The levy on mineral-bearing lands was held to be beyond the competence of the State Legislature and Section 3 was declared ultra vires insofar as it purported to impose that tax. The declaration of invalidity was made prospective only, so past collections were not to be refunded, while the levy became unenforceable from the date of the judgment.

Final Conclusion: The impugned mineral land tax failed on legislative competence, but the Court limited the effect of invalidity to the future.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax provision that forms a single integrated charging scheme and is beyond legislative competence cannot be salvaged by severing one basis of levy and substituting another where doing so would rewrite the legislative design; such invalidity may be confined prospectively where warranted.

---