https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284768 State regulation of minor minerals remains valid where the central mineral framework expressly excludes minor minerals from Union-controlled regulation and leaves their extraction to State rules. The Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1955 and the related royalty notification were upheld on that basis. Differential royalty rates did not violate Article 14 because the schedule classified distinct categories of stone by their nature, quality and market value, rather than imposing unequal rates on the same commodity solely by end use. Royalty was characterised as a charge on stone produce, not on manufacture, leaving the State's regulatory and royalty regime undisturbed. en-us Fri, 22 Nov 1957 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Dec 2019 11:06:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284768 State regulation of minor minerals remains valid where the central mineral framework expressly excludes minor minerals from Union-controlled regulation and leaves their extraction to State rules. The Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1955 and the related royalty notification were upheld on that basis. Differential royalty rates did not violate Article 14 because the schedule classified distinct categories of stone by their nature, quality and market value, rather than imposing unequal rates on the same commodity solely by end use. Royalty was characterised as a charge on stone produce, not on manufacture, leaving the State's regulatory and royalty regime undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 22 Nov 1957 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284768