By a majority view of 8:1, a nine-judge bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment.
In its order of September 24 order, which was uploaded on the SC website on Friday, the apex court said: “No case for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013 has been established. The review petitions are, therefore, dismissed.”
However, Justice B V Nagarathna in her separate order issued notice to the states and others and listed the review petitions for hearing in an open court.
The government had also sought a review of the Supreme Court’s August 14, 2024 ruling, which gave limited retrospective effect to the July 25 judgement, allowing states to collect tax arrears from April 1, 2005, onwards without any interest or penalty.
The July 25 judgment, which was delivered by an 8:1 majority ruling of a Constitution Bench, said royalty payable on minerals was not in the nature of tax under the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act but a contractual consideration paid by the mining lessee to the lessor for the rights, which would allow states to impose taxes on top of royalty.On July 25, the Supreme Court had held that states have got legislative competence to levy tax on mineral-bearing lands. The judgment gave a big boost to mineral rich states, including Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, Jharkhand, West Bengal Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan.The Centre, in its review petition, stated that the Supreme Court’s order upholding the states’ power to levy royalty on tax on mineral-bearing land had “ignored the macroeconomic impact of the minerals as a major resource for the core sector of the economy and this ignorance of practical realities… is an error apparent on the face of the record”.
Underlining that “varied state taxes would drive up prices and, inevitably, increase export dependence,” the Central government said that “many industries, especially those critical to the infrastructure sector (such as power, steel, cement, aluminium etc.) are heavily dependent on minerals, e.g. coal, iron ore, bauxite, limestone etc. Industrial growth across states is therefore dependent on mineral resources available only in a few of the states”.
The Centre has also sought an open court hearing.
Stating that “self-sufficiency across sectors, consequently, boosts domestic production,” the Centre said it is “crucially important” to have a system of uniform levies for mineral development at the national level which manifestly reflects “public interest.”
Any tax collected by the state governments in the name of tax on mineral-bearing land would create havoc in the fiscal sector of the country and will impact the economic integration of the country and also encourage state governments to levy taxes on mineral-bearing land on the basis of value of minerals produced, it said.
