Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. And Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr. (Supreme Court of India)
Material Facts
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the Explanation to Rule 38 of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 and the identical Explanation to Rule 45(8)(a) of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017. The challenge was confined to the provisions requiring that, while computing sale value, no deduction be made for royalty, contributions to the District Mineral Foundation (DMF) and the National Mineral Exploration Trust (NMET). The petitioners contended that these provisions resulted in inclusion of royalty, DMF and NMET in the sale value for determining Average Sale Price (ASP), allegedly causing a cascading effect.
The petitioners relied on Section 9 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Entry 24 of the Second Schedule, Rules 38, 42 and 43 of the 2016 Rules, Rule 45 of the 2017 Rules, the Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2015, the NMET Rules, 2015 and the DMF Rules, 2015.
Procedural History
The petitioners had earlier challenged the same provisions in Writ Petition (C) No. 715 of 2024. By judgment dated 07.11.2024, the Supreme Court noted that the Government was considering the issue through a consultation process and granted time to conclude the exercise while reserving liberty to challenge the eventual policy decision.
Want to Read the Complete Judgment?
You have read the free case summary. Unlock the full judgment, the detailed judicial reasoning and the downloadable PDF, along with every other premium judgment on TaxGuru.
Unlock All Premium Judgments
Already subscribed? Log in
One subscription covers the entire premium judgment library, not just this case.
