<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1965 (4) TMI 132 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277965</link>
    <description>Royalty on brick-earth and similar minor minerals is discussed as a delegated levy treated in substance as an impost akin to tax, with the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964 recognising State power to regulate minor minerals under Sections 14 and 15. Brick-earth was treated as falling within the ordinary meaning of mineral, and its inclusion as a minor mineral was not unconstitutional. The text also notes that royalty demands cannot be applied retrospectively to a period before the relevant rules prescribed such levy, so demands for earlier extraction lacked authority of law, though prosecution notices for unauthorised extraction were not invalidated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Apr 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2019 16:27:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=550583" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (4) TMI 132 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277965</link>
      <description>Royalty on brick-earth and similar minor minerals is discussed as a delegated levy treated in substance as an impost akin to tax, with the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964 recognising State power to regulate minor minerals under Sections 14 and 15. Brick-earth was treated as falling within the ordinary meaning of mineral, and its inclusion as a minor mineral was not unconstitutional. The text also notes that royalty demands cannot be applied retrospectively to a period before the relevant rules prescribed such levy, so demands for earlier extraction lacked authority of law, though prosecution notices for unauthorised extraction were not invalidated.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Apr 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277965</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>