JS◆ Jigarkumar ShahSTRATEGIC CFO · CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT
Weekly ArticleCourt Judgment5 min readPublished 11 November 2026

Mineral royalties are not tax: the boardroom impact of a nine-judge ruling

The Supreme Court held that royalty under the MMDR Act is not a tax and that States retain power to tax mineral rights and mineral-bearing land, reshaping how mineral-linked businesses assess cost and contingent exposure.

A long-running dispute over mineral royalties reached a nine-judge Bench. The ruling clarified the difference between royalty and tax—and changed the risk map for businesses with mining, mineral or state-levy exposure.

The core holding

By an 8:1 majority, the Supreme Court held that royalty payable under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act is a contractual or statutory payment for the right to extract minerals, not a tax.

The Court also held that States have legislative power to tax mineral rights and mineral-bearing lands, subject to the constitutional framework. A later order addressed how the judgment would operate in relation to past periods.

The finance and strategy question

The immediate issue is not limited to the legal validity of a levy. Businesses need to understand possible state-wise exposure, contractual pass-through rights, provisions, recoverability, pricing and the impact on project economics.

For lenders, investors and boards, the quality of the exposure assessment matters as much as the number. A range-based model with clear assumptions is more decision-useful than a single unsupported estimate.

BOARDROOM CHECKLIST

What leaders should do now

  1. Map every mineral-linked operation, State, levy, period and contractual counterparty.
  2. Review pass-through clauses, indemnities and pricing rights before assuming costs are recoverable.
  3. Build base, downside and litigation scenarios into cash-flow and covenant forecasts.
  4. Align legal advice, accounting treatment and board disclosures in one decision record.
CFO PERSPECTIVE

When a judgment changes the legal boundary of a cost, the right response is a cross-functional exposure model. Legal interpretation, tax positions, contracts, accounting and liquidity planning should reconcile to the same assumptions.

CA Jigarkumar Shah
VERIFIED SOURCE

Read the original material

Mineral Area Development Authority & Anr. v. Steel Authority of India & Anr., 2024 INSC 554 and 2024 INSC 607

Official source →

Important: This article is general information and a business perspective based on the cited source. It is not legal, tax, accounting or investment advice. The law and official guidance may change; obtain advice for your facts before acting.

APPLY THE INSIGHT

Turn the issue into
a decision-ready plan.

Discuss the financial, cash-flow and governance implications for your business.

Explore Distress Advisory →Request an appointment →
WhatsApp