Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF A.P. & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
IND. NATALI GRANITE LTD.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/08/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (8) 2 1996 SCALE (6)317
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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.