South Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs. Century Textiles & Industry Ltd.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.5501 of 1990
Petitioner: South Eastern Coalfields Limited
Respondent: Century Textiles & Industry Ltd.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.5501 of 1990
Judges: S. RANGANATHAN & N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 04, 1991
Head Note:
MINES AND MINERALS
Madhya Pradesh Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1982 (Act 15 of 1982):
Refund of cess – Levy of cess declared unconstitutional in JT 1991 (2) SC 439 – Collection of cess subsequent to the date of the Judgment of M.P. High Court in Hiralal’s case directed to be refunded along with interest – Appellant, however, not entitled to refund of any cess paid or collected prior to the date of said judgment.
Cases Reffered:
1. M/s. Orissa Cement Ltd. v. State of Orissa & Ors., JT 1991 (2) 439 – Followed. (Para 1)
2. Hiralal Rameshwar Prasad v. State of M.P., 1986 MPLJ 514 – Approved in JT 1991 (2) SC 439. (Paras 2 and 5)
2. Hiralal Rameshwar Prasad v. State of M.P., 1986 MPLJ 514 – Approved in JT 1991 (2) SC 439. (Paras 2 and 5)
JUDGEMENT:
RANGANATHAN, J. :
1. These Civil Appeals and SLPs raise the same issues as have been dealt by us in our judgment of even date in Civil Appeal No.1640 to 1662 of 1986 and connected cases. They arise in the following circumstances.
2. In the connected judgment referred to above we have held that the levy of cess under the Madhya Pradesh Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1982 (act 15 of 1982) is not a valid levy. In fact it had been so held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hiralal vs. State of M.P. (1986 MPLJ 514). The appeal preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh has been disposed of by us in the connected batch of cases above referred to.
3. Despite the judgment of the High Court the amounts collected from various assessees had not been refunded; on the contrary, the State appears to have continued collecting the cess apparently on the strength of the interim orders obtained in one of the above appeals viz. C.A. No.1649/86 though, as pointed out by us in the connected judgment no such modification seems to have been ordered by this Court of the initial order of 2.5.86.
4. In April/May, 1990, some of the assessees filed writ petitions in the High Court challenging the continued recovery of the cess and asking for the refund of amounts already collected. The respondents brought to the notice of the Court the orders of this Court in the earlier matter and pleaded that since the collections were being made in pursuance of the orders of this Court the writ petitions could not be entertained. The High Court rejected the respondent’s plea and allowed the writ petitions. The Coalfields concerned and the State Government have preferred petitions for leave to appeal from the order dated 28.7.90 and 22.8.90 in these cases. In one set of these appeals leave has been granted by us earlier : C.A. Nos.5501 and 5502 of 1990. The other SLPs had been listed before us subsequent to our hearing the main appeals and it was agreed that suitable orders may be passed thereon in the light of thee conclusion we reach in the main batch of appeals. We grant leave to appeal in all the Special Leave Petitions and proceed to dispose of all the appeals by this judgment.
5. These appeals have to be disposed of in the light of our judgment in the connected batch of cases referred to above. We have held there that the collection of any cess under Act 15 of 1982 subsequent to the date of the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hiralal’s case (1986 MPLJ 514) cannot be upheld. For the reasons set out in the judgment in the connected cases, we hold that the appellant will not be entitled to the refund of any cess paid or collected prior to the date of the said judgment. They would, however, be entitled to the refund of the amounts collected subsequent to that date from the coalfields or the State, as the case may be, along with interest in cases where there is an interim direction or undertaking to pay such interest at the rates specified in such direction or undertaking.
6. With these observations these appeals are disposed of.
1. These Civil Appeals and SLPs raise the same issues as have been dealt by us in our judgment of even date in Civil Appeal No.1640 to 1662 of 1986 and connected cases. They arise in the following circumstances.
2. In the connected judgment referred to above we have held that the levy of cess under the Madhya Pradesh Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1982 (act 15 of 1982) is not a valid levy. In fact it had been so held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hiralal vs. State of M.P. (1986 MPLJ 514). The appeal preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh has been disposed of by us in the connected batch of cases above referred to.
3. Despite the judgment of the High Court the amounts collected from various assessees had not been refunded; on the contrary, the State appears to have continued collecting the cess apparently on the strength of the interim orders obtained in one of the above appeals viz. C.A. No.1649/86 though, as pointed out by us in the connected judgment no such modification seems to have been ordered by this Court of the initial order of 2.5.86.
4. In April/May, 1990, some of the assessees filed writ petitions in the High Court challenging the continued recovery of the cess and asking for the refund of amounts already collected. The respondents brought to the notice of the Court the orders of this Court in the earlier matter and pleaded that since the collections were being made in pursuance of the orders of this Court the writ petitions could not be entertained. The High Court rejected the respondent’s plea and allowed the writ petitions. The Coalfields concerned and the State Government have preferred petitions for leave to appeal from the order dated 28.7.90 and 22.8.90 in these cases. In one set of these appeals leave has been granted by us earlier : C.A. Nos.5501 and 5502 of 1990. The other SLPs had been listed before us subsequent to our hearing the main appeals and it was agreed that suitable orders may be passed thereon in the light of thee conclusion we reach in the main batch of appeals. We grant leave to appeal in all the Special Leave Petitions and proceed to dispose of all the appeals by this judgment.
5. These appeals have to be disposed of in the light of our judgment in the connected batch of cases referred to above. We have held there that the collection of any cess under Act 15 of 1982 subsequent to the date of the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hiralal’s case (1986 MPLJ 514) cannot be upheld. For the reasons set out in the judgment in the connected cases, we hold that the appellant will not be entitled to the refund of any cess paid or collected prior to the date of the said judgment. They would, however, be entitled to the refund of the amounts collected subsequent to that date from the coalfields or the State, as the case may be, along with interest in cases where there is an interim direction or undertaking to pay such interest at the rates specified in such direction or undertaking.
6. With these observations these appeals are disposed of.
