The Supreme Court on Thursday (July 23) ruled that stamp duty payable on mining leases must be calculated based on anticipated royalty and not dead rent.

Relying on the proviso to Section 26 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed the M/s. Birla Corporation Ltd. appeal against the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision to uphold the levy of stamp duty by the District Collector on the anticipated royalty, instead of dead rent.

“As reproduced supra, the Section deals with payment of stamp duty in cases where at the time of the execution of the agreement, the value of the subject matter is indeterminate. The proviso (proviso to Section 26) thereto, deals specifically with mining leases and provides that in such cases the estimated royalty or value of the share thereof shall be sufficient for the purposes of determining stamp duty. It further clarifies that in cases where the government is the lessor, the estimation is to be carried out by the Collector.”, the Court observed.

The Court noted that during the stage of execution of a mining lease, it is difficult to ascertain the royalty due to non-commencement of the mining operations; therefore, a proviso to Section 26 was enacted precisely to address such situations by permitting stamp duty to be assessed on the basis of the Collector's estimate of the royalty likely to be payable.

The dispute arose from a mining lease granted to Birla Corporation for extraction of limestone over 56.27 hectares in Satna district, Madhya Pradesh. In July 2004, the District Collector, Satna demanded ₹4.32 crore as stamp duty, calculating it on the basis of anticipated royalty.

The company challenged the demand before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, contending that stamp duty should instead be computed on the basis of dead rent, which is a fixed minimum amount payable under a mining lease. After the High Court rejected the challenge, the company approached the Supreme Court.

Affirming the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Karol agreed with the view that the objective of the proviso to Section 26 is to address the situation when the royalty remains unascertainable due to commencement of the mining operations.

“The section, as is obvious, deals with Stamp duty to be paid in cases of indeterminate value. Since, with respect to mining, actual value can only be determined once mining operations commence, it is undisputed that on the date of the execution of the agreement, the value is indeed indeterminate.”, the Court observed.

1993 MP Govt. Notification Levying Stamp Duty On Highest Royalty Amount Valid

“The 1993 notification, the vires of which are although challenged but such challenge almost entirely unsubstantiated which in any case we find not to be ultra vires, states that for new quarry leases the rate that is highest from amongst (a) quantity of production shown in the application form; (b) quantity showed in schedule 3 of the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules 1961 or (c) dead rent, is to be taken for calculation of royalty for the purpose of payment of stamp duty. This makes it clear that the stamp duty payable is on the highest amount as the basis for calculation of royalty from amongst these three which can be either quantity based or the dead rent. It nowhere provides that the dead rent is the only criteria on which determination of the royalty can be made.”, the Court observed.

The Court stressed that the notification did not treat dead rent as the sole basis for valuation. Instead, it required consideration of the highest among the projected production disclosed by the applicant, the quantity prescribed under the applicable rules, and dead rent for estimating royalty.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title: M/S BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 717

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Grover, Sr. Adv. Mr. Praveen Kumar, AOR Ms. Babita Sant, Adv. Ms. Sunaina Kumar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manisha T. Karia, A.A.G. Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, AOR Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Kanishk Sharma, Adv. Mr. Karan Singh, Adv.