<?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>1988 (2) TMI 480 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286033</link>
    <description>The Gujarat Mineral Rights Tax Act, 1985 was analysed as a levy on mineral rights, not a duty of excise or tax on production, because the charging provisions targeted holders of mining leases and mineral output was only a measure of tax. Applying pith and substance, the Court treated royalty under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 as distinct from tax and held that the Central Act did not displace the State&#039;s power under Entry 50 of List II. The notification fixing different rates for classes of lessees and cement units was also upheld because Section 3 authorised rate variation and the classification had a rational economic basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Feb 2020 12:06:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=603354" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (2) TMI 480 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286033</link>
      <description>The Gujarat Mineral Rights Tax Act, 1985 was analysed as a levy on mineral rights, not a duty of excise or tax on production, because the charging provisions targeted holders of mining leases and mineral output was only a measure of tax. Applying pith and substance, the Court treated royalty under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 as distinct from tax and held that the Central Act did not displace the State&#039;s power under Entry 50 of List II. The notification fixing different rates for classes of lessees and cement units was also upheld because Section 3 authorised rate variation and the classification had a rational economic basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286033</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>