()

(https://www.lawinsider.in/)

 (https://www.lawinsider.in) HOME (HTTPS://WWW.LAWINSIDER.IN/)

BREAKING (HTTPS://WWW.LAWINSIDER.IN/CATEGORY/TRENDING)

NEWS (HTTPS://WWW.LAWINSIDER.IN/CATEGORY/NEWS) INTERNATIONAL (HTTPS://WWW.LAWINSIDER.IN/CATEGORY/INTERNATIONAL)

COLUMNS (HTTPS://WWW.LAWINSIDER.IN/CATEGORY/COLUMNS) REPORTS (HTTPS://WWW.LAWINSIDER.IN/CATEGORY/REPORT) 

JUDGMENT (HTTPS://WWW.LAWINSIDER.IN/CATEGORY/JUDGMENT)

VIDEOS/WEBINAR (HTTPS://WWW.LAWINSIDER.IN/CATEGORY/VIDEOS-WEBINAR) STUDY (HTTPS://WWW.LAWINSIDER.IN/CATEGORY/STUDY)

RANKING (HTTPS://WWW.LAWINSIDER.IN/CATEGORY/RANKING)

Home (https://www.lawinsider.in) / JUDGMENT (https://www.lawinsider.in/category/judgment) /

India Cement Ltd. vs. State of Tamil Nadu (https://www.lawinsider.in/judgment/india-cement-ltd-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu)

JUDGMENT (https://www.lawinsider.in/category/judgment)

India Cement Ltd. vs. State of Tamil Nadu

4 min read

 December 22, 2020

(https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIp
SwEtkQ/viewform?usp=sf_link)

CASE BRIEF

Appellant – India Cement Ltd.

Respondent- State Of Tamil Nadu.

Equivalent citations- 1990 AIR 85, 1989 SCR Supl. (1) 692

Bench – Venkataramiah, E.S. (Cj), Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J), Misra Rangnath, Oza,
G.L. (J) Singh, K.N. (J), Natrajan, S. (J) Ray, B.C. (J)
(https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIp
Decided On: 25.10.1989
SwEtkQ/viewform?usp=sf_link)
Statues Referred- 
 1. The Constitution of India.

2. Madras Panchayats Act, 1958.

3. Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.

4. Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development ) Act, 1957.

Case Referred-

1. H.R.S. Murthy v. Collector of Chittoor & Anr, 1964 6 SCR 666.

2. Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of West Bengal 1962 3 SCR 1.

3. Raja Jagannath Baksh Singh v. The State of U.P & Anr 1963 1 SCR 220.

Facts –

1. The appellant is a public limited company.

2. On 19th July 1963, the Govt. of Tamil Nadu sanctioned the grant to the appellant mining lease for
limestone and kankar for a period of 20 years over an extent of 133.91 acres of land.

3. The appellant started mining operations soon after the execution of the lease deed and has ever since
been paying the royalties, dead rents, and other amounts payable under the Deed.

4. On 10th July, 1965, the Collector sent a notice demanding cess or royalty payable under the Act on
minerals carried on during the period 1.07.1961 to 31.12.1964.

5. Thereafter, A Writ Petition was filed in the High Court Of Madras. The High Court of Madras
dismissed the writ petition holding that the cess levied under Section 115 of the act is a tax on land
and was within the competence of the State legislature.

6. Appellant filed an appeal in the Supreme Court of India against the order of the High Court.

Issue-

1. Whether levy of cess on royalty is within the competence of the State Legislature?

Contentions by Parties-

Appellant’s Arguments

1. That the levy of cess on royalty was nothing but a tax on royalty and was, therefore, ultra vires the
State legislature.

2. That Section 115 of the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958 read with explanation contravened Section 9 of
the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development ) Act, 1957.

3. That the impugned measure being a tax, not on the share of the produce of the land but royalty; royalty
being the return received from the produce of the land, revenue was payable for winning minerals
from the land.

4. That it cannot be attributable to Entry 45 of List II of the 7th Schedule, being not a land revenue.

5. That Explanation to Section 115(1) was added and there was an amendment as we have noted before.

6. That very Explanation makes a distinction between land revenue as such and royalty which by
amendment is deemed to be land revenue.

7. That the expression ‘royalty’ in Section 115 and Section 115 of the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958
cannot mean land revenue properly called or conventionally known, which is separate and distinct
from royalty.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. That the cess in the present case was a levy in respect of land and could be justified or sustained either
under entry 49, 50 or 45 of List II of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution.

2. That the expression ‘lands’ in Entry 49 is wide enough to include agricultural land as well as non-
agricultural land.

3. That entries should not be so construed as to make any entry redundant.

4. That even in pith and substance the tax fell to entry 50 of List II, it would be controlled by legislation
under entry 54 of list I.

 5. That the State has a right to tax minerals. It was further contended that if tax is levied, it will not be
irrational to correlate it to the value of the property and to make some kind of annual value basis of tax
without intending to tax the income.

6. That in entry 50 of List II, there is no limitation to the taxing power of the State.

7. That in fact what is imposed under Section 115 is not a cess on the mining rights or on royalty but is a
tax on land which clearly falls within the authority of the State legislature in Entry 49 of List II.

Judgment

The Supreme Court of India in this case held the following:

1. Royalty which is indirectly connected with land, cannot be said to be a tax directly on land as a unit.

2. Royalty is a tax, and as such a cess on royalty being a tax on royalty, is beyond the competence of the
State Legislature because section 9 of the Central Act covers the field and the State Legislature is
denuded of its competence under entry 23 of List II.

3. In any event, cess on royalty cannot be sustained under entry 49 of List II as being a tax on land.

Conclusion

It can be perceived from this case that mining royalty itself is tax there would not be service tax
again on mining royalty as the tax cannot be imposed on it.

(https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?
u=https%3A%2F%2F2.zoppoz.workers.dev%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fwww.lawinsider.in%2Fjudgment%2Findia-
cement-ltd-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu)
(https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?
text=India%20Cement%20Ltd.%20vs.%20State%20of%20Tamil%20Nadu
cement-ltd-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu)
(https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?
url=https%3A%2F%2F2.zoppoz.workers.dev%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fwww.lawinsider.in%2Fjudgment%2Findia-
cement-ltd-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu)
(https://api.whatsapp.com/send?
text=India%20Cement%20Ltd.%20vs.%20State%20of%20Tamil%20Nadu
https%3A%2F%2F2.zoppoz.workers.dev%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fwww.lawinsider.in%2Fjudgment%2Findia-cement-ltd-
vs-state-of-tamil-nadu)
(https://www.lawinsider.in/judgment/india-
cement-ltd-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu)
(https://www.tumblr.com/widgets/share/tool?
posttype=link&canonicalUrl=https%3A%2F%2F2.zoppoz.workers.dev%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fwww.lawinsider.in%2Fjud
cement-ltd-vs-state-of-tamil-
nadu&title=India%20Cement%20Ltd.%20vs.%20State%20of%20Tamil%2
(http://reddit.com/submit? 
url=https%3A%2F%2F2.zoppoz.workers.dev%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fwww.lawinsider.in%2Fjudgment%2Findia-cement-
 state-of-tamil-
nadu&title=India%20Cement%20Ltd.%20vs.%20State%20of%20Tamil%2
(https://share.flipboard.com/bookmarklet/popout?
v=2&url=https%3A%2F%2F2.zoppoz.workers.dev%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fwww.lawinsider.in%2Fjudgment%2Findia-cem
ltd-vs-state-of-tamil-
nadu&title=India%20Cement%20Ltd.%20vs.%20State%20of%20Tamil%2
Tags: India Cement Ltd (https://www.lawinsider.in/tag/india-cement-ltd) landmark case
(https://www.lawinsider.in/tag/landmark-case)

Previous Next
Kehar Singh and Others Vs State (Delhi The Calcutta Gas Company vs. State of West
Administration) Bengal And Others
(https://www.lawinsider.in/judgment/kehar- (https://www.lawinsider.in/judgment/the-calcutta-gas-
singh-and-others-vs-state-delhi-administration) company-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-others)

MORE STORIES

2 min read 2 min read 1 min read

JUDGMENT JUDGMENT JUDGMENT

(https://www.lawinsider.in/category/judgment)
(https://www.lawinsider.in/category/judgment)
(https://www.lawinsider.in/category/judgment)

[Landmark Judgement] [Landmark Judgement] [Landmark Judgement]

Patil Automation (P) CIT v. Khyati Realtors Ashish Ranjan V.
Ltd. v. Rakheja (P) Ltd. Anupma Tandon (2010)
Engineers (P) Ltd., (https://www.lawinsider.in/judgment/landmark-
(https://www.lawinsider.in/judgment/landmark-
(2022) judgement-cit-v-khyati- judgement-ashish-
(https://www.lawinsider.in/judgment/landmark-
realtors-p-ltd) ranjan-v-anupma-
judgement-patil- tandon-2010)
 December 10, 2023
automation-p-ltd-v-
 December 10, 2023
rakheja-engineers-p-
YOU MAY HAVE MISSED
ltd-2022)

 December 10, 2023

2 min read 2 min read 2 min read 2 min read

NEWS NEWS NEWS NEWS

(https://www.lawinsider.in/category/news)(https://www.lawinsider.in/category/news)(https://www.lawinsider.in/category/news)(https://www.lawinsider.in/category/ne
TRENDING TRENDING TRENDING TRENDING
(https://www.lawinsider.in/category/trending)
(https://www.lawinsider.in/category/trending)
(https://www.lawinsider.in/category/trending)
(https://www.lawinsider.in/category/tre

Patna HC Provides Relief Delhi HC Orders Proclaimed Offenders Not Cannot Hold Sender
to Cooperative Society Restoration of GST entitled of Pre-Arrest Bail Responsible for
Declares Solid Waste Registration highlighting Privilege: Himachal Unclaimed Notices:
Management Activity assessee was not provided Pradesh High Court Kerala HC
Exempt from BGST show cause notice (https://www.lawinsider.in/news/proclaimed-
(https://www.lawinsider.in/ne
(https://www.lawinsider.in/news/patna-
(https://www.lawinsider.in/news/delhi-
offenders-not-entitled-of- hold-sender-responsible-
hc-provides-relief-to- hc-orders-restoration-of- pre-arrest-bail-privilege- for-unclaimed-notices-
cooperative-society- gst-registration- himachal-pradesh-high- kerala-hc)
About Law Insider (https://www.lawinsider.in/about-law-
declares-solid-waste- highlighting-assessee- court)
insider)  December 12, 2023
management-activity-
Privacy Policy
was-not-provided-show-
(https://www.lawinsider.in/privacy-policy-2)  December 12, 2023 
exempt-from-bgst) cause-notice)
Terms of Use
 December (https://www.lawinsider.in/lawinsider-terms-of-
12, 2023

use)
    
DMCA (https://www.lawinsider.in/dmca)
Disclaimer (https://www.lawinsider.in/disclaimer-and-
condition-to-use-law-insider-in)
RSS Feed (https://www.lawinsider.in/feed/)
Advertise with Us (https://www.lawinsider.in/advertise-with-us)
Cancellation And Refund
(https://www.lawinsider.in/cancellation-and-refund)
Contact Us (https://www.lawinsider.in/contact-us)

Copyright © 2023 Law Insider Networks All rights reserved