9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... three cases referred to supra, namely UTV News Ltd. [2018 (5) TMI 1367 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], Home Solutions Retails India Ltd. [2011 (10) TMI 13 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and Ritika Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (12) TMI 706 - SUPREME COURT], since the final outcome therein will have a translational impact and affect the decision in all such matters as covered in these appeals. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Supreme Court as reported in 2012 (26) STR J118 (SC). So also, another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ritika Pvt. Ltd. dated 23.9.2011 which had held that service tax imposed under section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Act could not be held as unconstitutional has also been appealed against and admitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2017 (52) STR J204 (SC). The ld. Counsel prays that in view of these developments, the decisions in all these appeals may be deferred till the final decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 3. On the other hand, ld. ARs S/Shri A. Cletus and B. Balamurugan submitted that the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Home Solutions (supra) as well as Ritika Pvt. Ltd. (supra) have not bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in relation to such renting, for use in the course of or, for furtherance of, business or commerce is within the legislative competence of the Union Parliament. 3. The above question is directly relatable to the scope and ambit of Entry 49 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India dealing with "Taxes on lands and buildings". If the impost/levy is directly relatable to the lands/buildings contemplated in Entry 49 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India we would have had no hesitation in saying that the Union Parliament would lack legislative competence to enact the particular provision in the Finance Act, 1994. At this stage, we are unable to take the said view as has been advanced before us o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Constitution of India? Does the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 contain any provision which operates as a limitation on the field of legislation prescribed in List II Entry 50 of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India? In particular, whether Section 9 of the aforementioned Act denudes or limits the scope of List II Entry 50? 4. What is the true nature of royalty/dead rent payable on minerals produced/mined/extracted from mines? 5. Whether the majority decision in State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. [(2004) 10 SCC 201] could be read as departing from the law laid down in the seven-Judge Bench decision in India Cement Ltd. v. State of T.N. [(1990) 1 SCC 12]? 6. Whether "taxes on lands and bui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s uniqueness in the sense that it is the only entry in all the entries in the three Lists (Lists I, II and III) where the taxing power of the State Legislature has been subjected to "any limitations imposed by Parliament by law relating to mineral development"?. 2. Before concluding, we may clarify that normally the Bench of five Learned Judges in case of doubt has to invite the attention of the Chief Justice and request for the matter being placed for hearing before a Bench of larger coram than the Bench whose decision has come up for consideration (see Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 2 SCC 673: 2005 SCC (L&S) 246: 2005 SCC (Cri) 546]. However, in the present case, since prima facie there appears t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tcome therein will have a translational impact and affect the decision in all such matters as covered in these appeals. 6. We, therefore, hold that it would be appropriate and prudent to close the files in respect of all these appeals for the purpose of statistics. So ordered. We, however make it clear that the appeal number and year already assigned to these cases shall remain unchanged, that any interim / stay order passed earlier in these cases shall continue on record and that the matters are closed only for statistical purpose. In this regard, we also draw sustenance from Tribunal's Larger Bench decision vide Final Order No. A/10843/2018 dated 26.4.2018 in the case of Small Industries Development Bank of India Vs. CST, Ahmedabad. Both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
