https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277966 A levy confined to mining leaseholders and earmarked for development of mineral-bearing areas was treated as a fee because the earmarked use and the benefit to the paying class showed quid pro quo. However, once Parliament had occupied the field under Entry 54 of List I through the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, the State could not impose the levy under Entry 23 read with Entry 66 of List II. The levy also could not be sustained as a tax on land under Entry 49 or as a tax on mineral rights under Entry 50 of List II. The cess was therefore unconstitutional and beyond State competence. en-us Fri, 28 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Jan 2019 16:38:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277966 A levy confined to mining leaseholders and earmarked for development of mineral-bearing areas was treated as a fee because the earmarked use and the benefit to the paying class showed quid pro quo. However, once Parliament had occupied the field under Entry 54 of List I through the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, the State could not impose the levy under Entry 23 read with Entry 66 of List II. The levy also could not be sustained as a tax on land under Entry 49 or as a tax on mineral rights under Entry 50 of List II. The cess was therefore unconstitutional and beyond State competence. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 28 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277966