https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284768 Where a central mineral regulatory scheme expressly leaves minor minerals to State regulation, the State has legislative competence to frame rules and levy royalty for those minerals. The Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1955 and the royalty notification were therefore upheld as valid. The Article 14 challenge also failed because the rate structure was based on the nature, quality and market value of different stones, not on an arbitrary distinction between the same commodity; differential end-use did not make the classification discriminatory. The notification was further read as charging royalty on the produce of stone, not on manufacture, and no basis was found to strike it down on the facts presented. 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 Where a central mineral regulatory scheme expressly leaves minor minerals to State regulation, the State has legislative competence to frame rules and levy royalty for those minerals. The Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1955 and the royalty notification were therefore upheld as valid. The Article 14 challenge also failed because the rate structure was based on the nature, quality and market value of different stones, not on an arbitrary distinction between the same commodity; differential end-use did not make the classification discriminatory. The notification was further read as charging royalty on the produce of stone, not on manufacture, and no basis was found to strike it down on the facts presented. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 22 Nov 1957 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284768