Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Explanations to Rule 38 of the Mineral (Other than Atomic and Hydrocarbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 and Rule 45 of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017, which provide for the computation of royalty without deducting previous royalty payments, contributions to the District Mineral Foundation, and National Mineral Exploration Trust. The Court observed that policy decisions fall within the executive's domain, and courts should refrain from interfering unless the policy is absolutely capricious or illegal. While the Explanations might have onerous monetary implications for mining leaseholders, the Court found no excess of power or statutory breach. The Explanations were deemed clarificatory and within the ambit of the main provisions. However, the Court granted the respondents two months to conclude public consultations and take a final decision on amending the cascading impact of royalty on royalty in calculating the average sale price under the Explanations.
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Explanations to Rule 38 of the Mineral (Other than Atomic and Hydrocarbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 and Rule 45 of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017, which provide for the computation of royalty without deducting previous royalty payments, contributions to the District Mineral Foundation, and National Mineral Exploration Trust. The Court observed that policy decisions fall within the executive's domain, and courts should refrain from interfering unless the policy is absolutely capricious or illegal. While the Explanations might have onerous monetary implications for mining leaseholders, the Court found no excess of power or statutory breach. The Explanations were deemed clarificatory and within the ambit of the main provisions. However, the Court granted the respondents two months to conclude public consultations and take a final decision on amending the cascading impact of royalty on royalty in calculating the average sale price under the Explanations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
