https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285833 A cess imposed on mineral rights for development of a notified special area was treated as a valid State levy under Entry 5 of List II. The impost was distinguished from a tax on royalty or on mineral production, because it operated as a development levy and its reference to excavation or transport was only a measure of quantification. Section 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Special Area Development Authorities Act, 1986 was read as subject to Parliamentary limits on mineral development, but not as trenching upon the Union field. The challenge to State competence failed, and the cess and recovery proceedings were upheld as valid. en-us Wed, 01 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Jan 2020 12:18:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285833 A cess imposed on mineral rights for development of a notified special area was treated as a valid State levy under Entry 5 of List II. The impost was distinguished from a tax on royalty or on mineral production, because it operated as a development levy and its reference to excavation or transport was only a measure of quantification. Section 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Special Area Development Authorities Act, 1986 was read as subject to Parliamentary limits on mineral development, but not as trenching upon the Union field. The challenge to State competence failed, and the cess and recovery proceedings were upheld as valid. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 01 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285833