https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40146 A cess described as land revenue could not be sustained when, in substance, it was imposed on royalty payable under a Central mining law. The Court treated royalty as distinct from land revenue and held that the State could not recast royalty as land revenue to impose an additional burden where the Central legislation occupied the field and controlled royalty and mineral development. The levy was therefore beyond the State Legislature's competence, could not be supported as a tax on land under Entry 49 of List II, and was unconstitutional. The strike-down operated prospectively, with no refund of sums already collected. en-us Wed, 25 Oct 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Jul 2025 16:50:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40146 A cess described as land revenue could not be sustained when, in substance, it was imposed on royalty payable under a Central mining law. The Court treated royalty as distinct from land revenue and held that the State could not recast royalty as land revenue to impose an additional burden where the Central legislation occupied the field and controlled royalty and mineral development. The levy was therefore beyond the State Legislature's competence, could not be supported as a tax on land under Entry 49 of List II, and was unconstitutional. The strike-down operated prospectively, with no refund of sums already collected. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Wed, 25 Oct 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40146