(iii) In M.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh v. M.P. Electricity Board

9 SCC 755Reported decision2004#1909 most cited

What is (iii) In M.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh v. M.P. Electricity Board authority for?

A levy of tax or fee can be justified by reference to not just one entry but multiple entries in the lists under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. This principle supports the constitutional validity of a tax or fee even if it draws power from more than one legislative head.

60

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2015.

Also referred to as

M.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh v. M.P. Electricity Board · 9 SCC 755 · levy of tax or fee · Seventh Schedule · multiple entries for taxation · legislative competence · constitutional validity of tax · entry in list

Judgments citing (iii) In M.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh v. M.P. Electricity Board

M/S.S B MINERALS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/17000/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…991) 3 SCC 358], in the context of silk industry. (m) He also contended that a levy of tax or fee could be justified on not just one entry in a list under the VII Schedule of the Constitution, but on multiple entries, by placing reliance on [(2004) 9 SCC 755], M.P.Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs. M.P.Electricity Board. (n) Further, referring to Section 2 of MMDR Act, it was contended that regulation of mines and development of minerals to the extent provided in that Act is distinct from imposition of tax on minerals as a forest produce. It was contended that levy of tax as a forest produce in…

M/S KUMARASWAMY MINERAL EXPORTS LTD vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/15432/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…991) 3 SCC 358], in the context of silk industry. (m) He also contended that a levy of tax or fee could be justified on not just one entry in a list under the VII Schedule of the Constitution, but on multiple entries, by placing reliance on [(2004) 9 SCC 755], M.P.Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs. M.P.Electricity Board. (n) Further, referring to Section 2 of MMDR Act, it was contended that regulation of mines and development of minerals to the extent provided in that Act is distinct from imposition of tax on minerals as a forest produce. It was contended that levy of tax as a forest produce in…

M/S GAVISIDDESWARA ENTERPRISES vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/17583/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…991) 3 SCC 358], in the context of silk industry. (m) He also contended that a levy of tax or fee could be justified on not just one entry in a list under the VII Schedule of the Constitution, but on multiple entries, by placing reliance on [(2004) 9 SCC 755], M.P.Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs. M.P.Electricity Board. (n) Further, referring to Section 2 of MMDR Act, it was contended that regulation of mines and development of minerals to the extent provided in that Act is distinct from imposition of tax on minerals as a forest produce. It was contended that levy of tax as a forest produce in…

SMT.R.MALLAMMA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/31145/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…991) 3 SCC 358], in the context of silk industry. (m) He also contended that a levy of tax or fee could be justified on not just one entry in a list under the VII Schedule of the Constitution, but on multiple entries, by placing reliance on [(2004) 9 SCC 755], M.P.Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs. M.P.Electricity Board. (n) Further, referring to Section 2 of MMDR Act, it was contended that regulation of mines and development of minerals to the extent provided in that Act is distinct from imposition of tax on minerals as a forest produce. It was contended that levy of tax as a forest produce in…

S V SRINIVASULU S/O LATE S.V.CHETTY vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/15795/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…991) 3 SCC 358], in the context of silk industry. (m) He also contended that a levy of tax or fee could be justified on not just one entry in a list under the VII Schedule of the Constitution, but on multiple entries, by placing reliance on [(2004) 9 SCC 755], M.P.Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs. M.P.Electricity Board. (n) Further, referring to Section 2 of MMDR Act, it was contended that regulation of mines and development of minerals to the extent provided in that Act is distinct from imposition of tax on minerals as a forest produce. It was contended that levy of tax as a forest produce in…

SRI. M.SRINIVASULU vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/15985/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…991) 3 SCC 358], in the context of silk industry. (m) He also contended that a levy of tax or fee could be justified on not just one entry in a list under the VII Schedule of the Constitution, but on multiple entries, by placing reliance on [(2004) 9 SCC 755], M.P.Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs. M.P.Electricity Board. (n) Further, referring to Section 2 of MMDR Act, it was contended that regulation of mines and development of minerals to the extent provided in that Act is distinct from imposition of tax on minerals as a forest produce. It was contended that levy of tax as a forest produce in…

M/S MEHBOOB TRANSPORT COMPANY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/15954/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…991) 3 SCC 358], in the context of silk industry. (m) He also contended that a levy of tax or fee could be justified on not just one entry in a list under the VII Schedule of the Constitution, but on multiple entries, by placing reliance on [(2004) 9 SCC 755], M.P.Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs. M.P.Electricity Board. (n) Further, referring to Section 2 of MMDR Act, it was contended that regulation of mines and development of minerals to the extent provided in that Act is distinct from imposition of tax on minerals as a forest produce. It was contended that levy of tax as a forest produce in…

M/S. S.B MINERALS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/31129/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…991) 3 SCC 358], in the context of silk industry. (m) He also contended that a levy of tax or fee could be justified on not just one entry in a list under the VII Schedule of the Constitution, but on multiple entries, by placing reliance on [(2004) 9 SCC 755], M.P.Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs. M.P.Electricity Board. (n) Further, referring to Section 2 of MMDR Act, it was contended that regulation of mines and development of minerals to the extent provided in that Act is distinct from imposition of tax on minerals as a forest produce. It was contended that levy of tax as a forest produce in…

M/S GOGGA GURUSANTHIAH & BROS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/16145/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…991) 3 SCC 358], in the context of silk industry. (m) He also contended that a levy of tax or fee could be justified on not just one entry in a list under the VII Schedule of the Constitution, but on multiple entries, by placing reliance on [(2004) 9 SCC 755], M.P.Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs. M.P.Electricity Board. (n) Further, referring to Section 2 of MMDR Act, it was contended that regulation of mines and development of minerals to the extent provided in that Act is distinct from imposition of tax on minerals as a forest produce. It was contended that levy of tax as a forest produce in…

M/S. THE SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON ORE LTD, vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/31148/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…991) 3 SCC 358], in the context of silk industry. (m) He also contended that a levy of tax or fee could be justified on not just one entry in a list under the VII Schedule of the Constitution, but on multiple entries, by placing reliance on [(2004) 9 SCC 755], M.P.Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs. M.P.Electricity Board. (n) Further, referring to Section 2 of MMDR Act, it was contended that regulation of mines and development of minerals to the extent provided in that Act is distinct from imposition of tax on minerals as a forest produce. It was contended that levy of tax as a forest produce in…

SRI.S.A.THAWAB vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/10712/2009HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…991) 3 SCC 358], in the context of silk industry. (m) He also contended that a levy of tax or fee could be justified on not just one entry in a list under the VII Schedule of the Constitution, but on multiple entries, by placing reliance on [(2004) 9 SCC 755], M.P.Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs. M.P.Electricity Board. (n) Further, referring to Section 2 of MMDR Act, it was contended that regulation of mines and development of minerals to the extent provided in that Act is distinct from imposition of tax on minerals as a forest produce. It was contended that levy of tax as a forest produce in…

M/S B ASHWATHNARAYANA SINGH & CO., vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS

WP/31327/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…991) 3 SCC 358], in the context of silk industry. (m) He also contended that a levy of tax or fee could be justified on not just one entry in a list under the VII Schedule of the Constitution, but on multiple entries, by placing reliance on [(2004) 9 SCC 755], M.P.Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs. M.P.Electricity Board. (n) Further, referring to Section 2 of MMDR Act, it was contended that regulation of mines and development of minerals to the extent provided in that Act is distinct from imposition of tax on minerals as a forest produce. It was contended that levy of tax as a forest produce in…

H N PREMAKUMAR S/O LATE H.N.N. SETTY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY

WP/6721/2009HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…991) 3 SCC 358], in the context of silk industry. (m) He also contended that a levy of tax or fee could be justified on not just one entry in a list under the VII Schedule of the Constitution, but on multiple entries, by placing reliance on [(2004) 9 SCC 755], M.P.Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs. M.P.Electricity Board. (n) Further, referring to Section 2 of MMDR Act, it was contended that regulation of mines and development of minerals to the extent provided in that Act is distinct from imposition of tax on minerals as a forest produce. It was contended that levy of tax as a forest produce in…

BANASHANKARI IRON ORE MINES vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/31184/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…991) 3 SCC 358], in the context of silk industry. (m) He also contended that a levy of tax or fee could be justified on not just one entry in a list under the VII Schedule of the Constitution, but on multiple entries, by placing reliance on [(2004) 9 SCC 755], M.P.Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs. M.P.Electricity Board. (n) Further, referring to Section 2 of MMDR Act, it was contended that regulation of mines and development of minerals to the extent provided in that Act is distinct from imposition of tax on minerals as a forest produce. It was contended that levy of tax as a forest produce in…

M/S SANDUR MANGANESE AND IRON ORE LTD vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/29222/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…991) 3 SCC 358], in the context of silk industry. (m) He also contended that a levy of tax or fee could be justified on not just one entry in a list under the VII Schedule of the Constitution, but on multiple entries, by placing reliance on [(2004) 9 SCC 755], M.P.Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs. M.P.Electricity Board. (n) Further, referring to Section 2 of MMDR Act, it was contended that regulation of mines and development of minerals to the extent provided in that Act is distinct from imposition of tax on minerals as a forest produce. It was contended that levy of tax as a forest produce in…

M/S KUMARASWAMY MINERAL EXPORTS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/31191/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…991) 3 SCC 358], in the context of silk industry. (m) He also contended that a levy of tax or fee could be justified on not just one entry in a list under the VII Schedule of the Constitution, but on multiple entries, by placing reliance on [(2004) 9 SCC 755], M.P.Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs. M.P.Electricity Board. (n) Further, referring to Section 2 of MMDR Act, it was contended that regulation of mines and development of minerals to the extent provided in that Act is distinct from imposition of tax on minerals as a forest produce. It was contended that levy of tax as a forest produce in…

M/S TRIDENT MINERALS & OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/30928/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…991) 3 SCC 358], in the context of silk industry. (m) He also contended that a levy of tax or fee could be justified on not just one entry in a list under the VII Schedule of the Constitution, but on multiple entries, by placing reliance on [(2004) 9 SCC 755], M.P.Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs. M.P.Electricity Board. (n) Further, referring to Section 2 of MMDR Act, it was contended that regulation of mines and development of minerals to the extent provided in that Act is distinct from imposition of tax on minerals as a forest produce. It was contended that levy of tax as a forest produce in…

M/S NADEEM MINERALS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/15809/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…991) 3 SCC 358], in the context of silk industry. (m) He also contended that a levy of tax or fee could be justified on not just one entry in a list under the VII Schedule of the Constitution, but on multiple entries, by placing reliance on [(2004) 9 SCC 755], M.P.Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs. M.P.Electricity Board. (n) Further, referring to Section 2 of MMDR Act, it was contended that regulation of mines and development of minerals to the extent provided in that Act is distinct from imposition of tax on minerals as a forest produce. It was contended that levy of tax as a forest produce in…

VEDANTA LIMITED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/44793/2013HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…991) 3 SCC 358], in the context of silk industry. (m) He also contended that a levy of tax or fee could be justified on not just one entry in a list under the VII Schedule of the Constitution, but on multiple entries, by placing reliance on [(2004) 9 SCC 755], M.P.Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs. M.P.Electricity Board. (n) Further, referring to Section 2 of MMDR Act, it was contended that regulation of mines and development of minerals to the extent provided in that Act is distinct from imposition of tax on minerals as a forest produce. It was contended that levy of tax as a forest produce in…

STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/35251/2009HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…991) 3 SCC 358], in the context of silk industry. (m) He also contended that a levy of tax or fee could be justified on not just one entry in a list under the VII Schedule of the Constitution, but on multiple entries, by placing reliance on [(2004) 9 SCC 755], M.P.Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs. M.P.Electricity Board. (n) Further, referring to Section 2 of MMDR Act, it was contended that regulation of mines and development of minerals to the extent provided in that Act is distinct from imposition of tax on minerals as a forest produce. It was contended that levy of tax as a forest produce in…

Showing 1–20 of 60 · Page 1 of 3

(iii) In M.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh v. M.P. Electricity Board (9 SCC 755) — Cited in 60 Judgments | BharatTax