https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761354 In fiscal and economic regulation of mineral royalty, the Court treated the computation framework as a policy matter warranting wide legislative and executive latitude. It held that the explanations to Rule 38 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 and Rule 45 of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017 were clarificatory and harmonising in nature, and not an impermissible enlargement of the rules; they were therefore not struck down for manifest arbitrariness. The Court also did not finally invalidate the differing treatment of coal in excluding royalty and certain mineral fund contributions, but directed the respondents to complete the pending consultation and take a final decision within the time granted. en-us Thu, 07 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Nov 2024 08:46:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761354 In fiscal and economic regulation of mineral royalty, the Court treated the computation framework as a policy matter warranting wide legislative and executive latitude. It held that the explanations to Rule 38 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 and Rule 45 of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017 were clarificatory and harmonising in nature, and not an impermissible enlargement of the rules; they were therefore not struck down for manifest arbitrariness. The Court also did not finally invalidate the differing treatment of coal in excluding royalty and certain mineral fund contributions, but directed the respondents to complete the pending consultation and take a final decision within the time granted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 07 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761354