SC rejects review petitions against verdict allowing States to levy tax on mineral rights

Karnataka Iron and Steel Manufacturers Association Vs Mineral Area Development Authority and Ors (Supreme Court of India)
Summary: In the matter of Karnataka Iron and Steel Manufacturers Association vs. Mineral Area Development Authority and Ors, the Supreme Court of India addressed review petitions challenging its earlier verdict, which permitted states to levy taxes on mineral rights. The Court examined the petitions and found no substantial errors or apparent misinterpretations in the original judgment. Consequently, the review petitions were dismissed, confirming the validity of the earlier ruling that empowered states to impose taxes on mineral resources within their jurisdiction.
The Court’s order outlined the procedural aspects of the review process, including the rejection of requests to list the review petitions for open court hearings. The bench, comprising several justices, reiterated that the review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 had not been established. However, separate observations by Hon’ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna acknowledged the need to issue notices to the respondents regarding the application to file review petitions. Despite this, the overarching conclusion remained that the original decision stood without any need for modification, emphasizing the Court’s position on the matter of taxation rights for states over minerals.
This ruling underscores the Court’s stance on allowing states the authority to generate revenue from mineral resources, a significant aspect for the governance of mineral rights in India. The dismissal of the review petitions not only reinforces the legal framework surrounding mineral taxation but also serves as a precedent for similar future cases, affirming the powers of state governments in fiscal matters related to natural resources.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
Permission to file the review petition granted.
2. Applications for listing the review petitions in open Court are rejected.
3. Having perused the review petitions, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. No case for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013 has been established. The review petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
Issue notice to the respondents on the application seeking permission to file the review petition.
Applications for listing the review petitions in open Court are allowed.
Having perused the review petitions, a case for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 is made out.
Issue notice to the respondents in all the review petitions as well as on interim prayers made therein, returnable in eight weeks.
1. In terms of the signed order, Hon’ble Dr Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud with Hon’ble Mr Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Hon’ble Mr Justice Abhay S Oka, Hon’ble Mr Justice J B Pardiwala, Hon’ble Mr Justice Manoj Misra, Hon’ble Ujjal Bhuyan, Hon’ble Mr Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Hon’ble Mr Justice Augustine George Masih passed the following order:
“1 Permission to file the review petition granted.
2 Applications for listing the review petitions in open Court are rejected.
3 Having perused the review petitions, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. No case for review under der XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013 has been established. The review petitions are, therefore, dismissed.”
2. Hon’ble Ms Justice B V Nagarathna passed a separate order in the following terms:
“Issue notice to the respondents on the application seeking permission to file the review petition.
Applications for listing the review petitions in open Court are allowed.
Having perused the review petitions, a case for review under Order XL VII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 is made out.
Issue notice to the respondents in all the review petitions as well as on interim prayers made therein, returnable in eight weeks.”
3. In view of the above, permission to file the review petition granted. Applications for listing the review petitions in open Court are rejected. The review petitions are dismissed.
4. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.