On 25th July 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a historic judgment in the Mineral Area Development Authority & Anr. vs. Steel Authority of India & Anr., fundamentally altering the landscape of taxation on mineral rights in India. In a decisive 8:1 majority, the nine-judge bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud ruled that royalties imposed under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) is not a tax. This ruling overturned the previous understanding established by the 1990 India Cement Ltd. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, and reaffirms the law in the 2004 Kesoram Industries Ltd. judgment.
A seven-judge bench in the case of India Cement Ltd v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors, laid down that royalty was a tax. Up until that point, the majority of judgments held that royalties were not taxes. Over the course of the following ten years, this affected several decisions by the Supreme Court and High Courts, leading to a dramatic change in the way Court’s approached this issue until 2004, when a five-judge Supreme Court bench in The State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. and Ors held that India Cement ltd decision was erroneous and that the court had a “constitutional, legal, and moral” duty to rectify the error.
For over three decades, the understanding that royalty payments on minerals constituted a form of tax influenced how state governments and industries approached mineral extraction. The Supreme Court’s 8:1 majority ruling, however, clarified that royalty, though imposed by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (MMDR Act) of 1957, is fundamentally different from a tax. This distinction was crucial in affirming constitutional powers of state legislatures to levy taxes on mineral-bearing lands without being limited by the MMDR Act.
This ruling brings clarity and reinforces the idea that royalty is a contractual obligation arising from the mining lease, rather than a sovereign imposition like tax. As a result, states now have the authority to impose additional taxes on mineral rights, potentially leading to varied tax landscapes across different states.
The court also explored the concept of taxes on lands and buildings, interpreting the term “land” broadly to include all types of land, regardless of its use. This interpretation permits States to tax mineral-bearing lands. Constitutionally, land encompasses everything above and below its surface, including sub-soil minerals. This distinction highlights the difference between State powers to tax land itself versus taxing mineral rights; the former pertains to land taxation, while the latter deals with the taxation of mineral extraction rights.
The Court’s decision to apply the decision retroactively from 1 April 2005 could lead to significant financial strain on mining companies. They may face substantial tax arrears, potentially exceeding their net worth, which could trigger a wave of litigations. The retrospective application may also raise questions of fairness, particularly since states have already compensated for revenue losses through increased royalties.
The ruling may lead to uneven economic outcomes across different states. States that have implemented laws to collect taxes on royalties following the Kesoram decision could benefit, while those without such legislation might face negative consequences. This disparity could encourage unhealthy competition among states, as they might attempt to attract mining companies by reducing or eliminating taxes beyond royalties, potentially destabilizing the market.
Given that power generation in India heavily relies on coal, the additional financial burden on coal companies due to this ruling may be passed on to consumers through higher electricity tariffs. This could have widespread economic implications, affecting both industries and households.
The ruling may also impact ongoing legal cases and could prompt new challenges, particularly regarding the applicability of GST or Service Tax on royalties. This introduces an element of uncertainty, as courts may need to determine whether royalty payments should be classified as a taxable service.
The interpretation of royalty as non-tax in this case could spill over into other sectors, such as oilfields, where similar royalty provisions exist. This may open the door to further legal disputes over the nature of royalty payments in these industries.
Mining companies, which have historically paid royalty as part of their lease agreements, now face the possibility of paying both royalty and separate taxes on mineral rights imposed by state governments. While royalty is seen as a payment to the state for extracting minerals, taxes on mineral rights would be an additional cost, reflecting the state’s sovereign right to impose such levies.
This dual financial obligation could increase the cost of doing business for mining companies. As industries face higher operational costs due to the combination of royalties and taxes, these costs are likely to be passed on to consumers. This could lead to price hikes in goods that depend on mineral resources, such as construction materials, electricity (from coal), and manufactured products. The public might feel the effect in the form of increased prices for basic goods and services, potentially adding inflationary pressures on essential commodities.
The ruling allows state governments to independently set tax rates on mineral rights. This means that different states could impose varying levels of taxes, creating a fragmented tax landscape across India. Consumers in states with higher tax rates may face steeper price increases compared to those in states with lower levies. This regional disparity could affect local economies and purchasing power, leading to different inflation rates depending on the state.
With the combination of royalties and new taxes, the added costs will likely ripple through industries, leading to inflation, particularly in sectors like manufacturing and energy. The financial burden on businesses could also affect employment rates and wages in mining-dependent regions, impacting local communities economically.
The Supreme Court’s judgment marks a significant shift in the balance of taxation powers between the Centre and the States. While it strengthens the States’ ability to tax mineral rights, it also introduces the risk of inconsistent tax regimes across India, which could impact the mining sector’s overall efficiency and competitiveness. As States begin to exercise their newfound authority, the industry will need to adapt to a more complex tax environment. Companies operating in multiple States may face varying tax obligations, potentially leading to increased compliance costs and strategic challenges.
However, the ruling offers states a valuable opportunity to more effectively generate revenue from their natural resources. By imposing taxes on mineral-bearing lands, states can better fund regional development initiatives, contributing to a more balanced economic growth across the country. The additional revenue can be allocated to critical areas such as infrastructure, education, and healthcare, thereby enhancing the overall economic well-being of these regions. This strategy has the potential to reduce regional disparities and promote long-term development, ultimately leading to a more equitable distribution of wealth and resources across the nation.