(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 tax or fee can be levied based on multiple entries in the VII Schedule of the Constitution, not just a single entry.

60

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2015.

Also referred to as

M.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh v. M.P. Electricity Board · 9 SCC 755 · VII Schedule · Constitution · tax levy · fee levy · multiple entries

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…

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