<?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>1990 (4) TMI 302 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286359</link>
    <description>Entry 50 of List II permits State taxation on mineral rights only subject to Parliamentary limitations on mineral development; applying India Cement, the Court treated royalty under section 9 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 as a statutory limit on the State&#039;s taxing power. It therefore held section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh (Mineral Rights) Tax Act, 1975 ultra vires to the extent it imposed a burden beyond what Parliament had permitted, so the levy could not continue for the future. However, because past collections had been made under prior decisions and legal uncertainty, the Court declined to order refund of tax already collected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Feb 2020 13:02:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=604793" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (4) TMI 302 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286359</link>
      <description>Entry 50 of List II permits State taxation on mineral rights only subject to Parliamentary limitations on mineral development; applying India Cement, the Court treated royalty under section 9 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 as a statutory limit on the State&#039;s taxing power. It therefore held section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh (Mineral Rights) Tax Act, 1975 ultra vires to the extent it imposed a burden beyond what Parliament had permitted, so the levy could not continue for the future. However, because past collections had been made under prior decisions and legal uncertainty, the Court declined to order refund of tax already collected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286359</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>