SC refuses to restrict States’ power to tax mines only prospectively 

The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined pleas by the Centre and assessees to apply its July 25 majority judgment upholding the power of State Legislatures to tax mines and minerals rights only with prospective effect.

A nine-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud declared that States could levy tax on mines and mineral rights from April 1, 2005. Demands of tax would not operate for transactions prior to this court-off date.

The court clarified that there would be no interest or penalty imposed on the assessees for tax due from the cut-off date of April 1, 2005 and the date of the judgment, July 25, 2024.

The payment of tax for this period would be paid in instalments staggered across 12 years, commencing from April 1, 2026.

“We have rejected the submission that the judgment should not be applied retrospectively. But we have laid down certain conditionalities like there is no interest or penalty. The payment is staggered over 12 years and there would be no tax demands for transactions prior to April 1, 2005,” Chief Justice addressed the lawyers present in the courtroom.

The clarification followed a query raised by the government through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

The law officer and senior advocates for several asessees had argued that allowing States to demand retrospective taxes on mines and minerals rights would have a “cascading effect” whose impact would ultimately impact the common man. They had said industries, including public sector undertakings involved in the manufacture of iron to steel, relied on the mines.

The mines were leased out in public auctions based on the terms of the 2015 amendments made to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act of 1957. The bids were formulated according to the then existing rates. Retrospective evaluation of tax would lead to a heavy load which may crush these sectors.

“Lordships may consider stating that neither the state may demand any levy retrospectively nor the private parties or PSUs who have paid would seek any refund of the money,” Mehta submitted.

Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for Mahanadi Coalfields, had submitted that past levy demands may be more than the net worth of many companies. Retrospective implementation of the judgment ran the risk of bankrupting these companies.

On July 25, the Constitution Bench, in a majority judgment of 8:1 ratio had held that the power of State legislatures to tax mineral-bearing lands and quarries cannot be limited by the Parliament.

The judgment had freed States from the restrictions of the Centre and is in tune with the federalist principles of governance.

“Fiscal federalism entails that the power of the States to levy taxes within the legislative domain carved out to them and subject to the limitations laid down by the Constitution must be secured from unconstitutional interference by Parliament,” Chief Justice Chandrachud had laid down in the judgment.

The verdict noted how mineral-rich States like Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Odisha continue to have per capita income below national averages and trail in economic development.

The court had further held that royalty paid to States by mining lease holders was not tax.

“Royalty is not a tax. Royalty is a contractual consideration paid by the mining lessee to the lessor for enjoyment of mineral rights,” Chief Justice Chandrachud noted in his majority opinion.

Protecting States’ right to tax mineral rights, Chief Justice Chandrachud had said State legislatures derive their power to tax mines and quarries under Article 246 read with Entry 49 (tax on lands and buildings) in the State List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.

“Any dilution in the taxing powers of the State legislatures will necessarily impact their ability to raise revenues, which in turn will impede their ability to deliver welfare schemes and services to the people.

The ability of the State Governments to invest in physical infrastructure, health, education, human capacity, and research and development is directly co-related to the raising of government revenues,” the judgment had reasoned.