The demand, issued under Rule 12A of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydrocarbon Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016, includes both the sale value of the shortfall quantity and the appropriation of performance security. The authorities allege that the company failed to meet its dispatch obligations under the Mine Development and Production Agreement (MDPA).
Also Read: Tata Steel, Dutch government sign joint letter of intent on low CO2 steel and health measures
Tata Steel has stated that the demand lacks substantive justification and that it possesses strong grounds to contest it on both legal and factual merits. The company intends to pursue appropriate legal remedies before the relevant judicial or quasi-judicial forums.
The steelmaker also noted that a similar demand of ₹1,902.73 crore had been raised for the fourth year, which it had already challenged before the Orissa High Court. In that case, registered as WP(C) No. 22431 of 2025, the court granted an interim stay on August 14, 2025, restraining state authorities from taking coercive action. The interim protection was further extended on September 2, 2025, and remains in effect until the next hearing.
On Friday (October 3), shares of Tata Steel Ltd ended at ₹173.20, up by ₹5.70, or 3.40%, on the BSE.
Also Read: Tata Steel pumps ₹4,054 crore into Singapore arm T Steel Holdings