State
of A.P. & Ors Vs. Ind. Natali Granite
Ltd. [1996] INSC 936 (9
August 1996)
Ramaswamy,
K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (8) 2 1996 SCALE (6)317
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
Leave
granted.
Delay
condoned.
Though
the respondent has been served, none appears for the respondent. The respondent
filed writ: petition questioning the competence of the Government to levy cess
on mining lease. Learned single Judge by his judgment dated October 1, 1986 allowed the writ petition. The
Government amended the District Boards Act, 1955 by Amendment Act 8 of 1989
empowering the State to levy land revenue or royalty/ seigiorage fee. The
respondent again filed writ petition No.1 of 1987 questioning the legislative
competence following the judgment of this Court in India Cement Ltd. vs. State
of Tamil Nadu [(1990) 1 SCC 12]. By judgment
and order dated December
21, 1989, the High
Court held that the amendment was ultra vires the power of the State
Legislature. Again the legislature amended the Act empowering the levy and
collection of the cess on the same grounds, while appeal was filed in this
Court. The respondent filed another writ petition which was allowed by the High
Court on December 21,
1990. Thus, this
appeal by special leave.
The
controversy is no longer res integra. This Court in P.Kannadasan etc.etc. vs.
State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. etc.etc. [C.A. No.
9847/96 & batch] decided on July 6, 1996 has considered elaborately the entire controversy and held
that the legislature is competent to amend the law removing the invalidity
pointed out in the judgment. Therefore, when an Act made by the State
Legislature is invalidated by the Court on the ground that the legislature was
not competent to enact it, the legislature is competent to remove the lacuna and
alter the basis of the judgment, as pointed out by the Court, and enact the law
consistent with the constitutional scheme. The contention that the Parliament
must first create the levy and then give it retrospective effect was also negatived
holding that the Parliament is not bound to adopt identical language every time
it enacts a validation Act. It is open to it to employ such language as it
chooses. All that the Court should see is whether the language employed
achieves the purpose which the Parliament sets out to achieve. The language
employed in Section 2 of the validation Act does achieve the purpose. Dealing
with the further contention that the validation was designed to, and provides
only to validate the taxes and cesses already covered under the relevant
provisions of the enactment which was declared invalid and that power cannot be
utilised to empower or authorise the Parliament to recover taxes and cesses
payable under the invalid provisions, this Court had held that unless the levy
is validated, recoveries already made cannot be validated. It was for this
reason that the enactment came to be made. A Further contention that the
Parliament is devoid of the power to prescribe different rates of tax in
different States as it violates Article 14.
That
contention was also elaborately considered and negatived by this Court. Yet
another contention that the Parliament having denuded the power of the State
Legislature to levy tax mineral extraction was raised and royalties is invalid
unless a fresh enactant under Entry 54 of the List I of the Seventh Schedule is
made. That contention also was rejected. It is, thus, clear that this Court has
upheld the amendments validating the collections of the cess payable under the
State Acts.
The
appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgments and orders of the High Court stand
set aside. No costs, since the respondent is not appearing.
Back
Pages: 1 2