fflCH C^KA OF CmiATlTSGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITIONNO. ^5£>7 /2001 M/s Ambuja Cement Eastem Limited (Previously named as M/s Modi Cement Limited) A Company duly incorporated under ihe Companies ACt,1956, having its Registered OfBce at Rawan, Baloda Bazar District Raipur (Presently Chhattisgarh) and an office amongst ofhers, at Raipur Chhattisgarh. u r^ ^ PETITIONER VERSUS Jiy The State of Chhattisgarh fhrough Ihe Secretary, Dq)artment ofRevenue, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) - c^ 2) Tlie Collector, Raipui, Chhattisgm-h ^3) The Minmg Officer, Raipur Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES ^MT: .,..^3^ ^^ <-^-^- RESPONDENTS .227 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ PETITIONER HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0.2597 OF 2001 M/s. Ambuja Cement Eastern Limited Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitutton of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Yogesh Pandey, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Government Advocate forthe State. 1. ORDER (Passed onthis 16thday of November, 2011) Challengein this petition is to the impugned notice dated 24.09.1996 (Annexure B) on the ground that in liaht of the decision of the Supreme Court in District Mining Officer & Others v. Tata Iron & Sieel Co. & Anothei^, the demand on accountofthe cess is illegal. Learned appearing for the petitioner relies on a decision ofthisCourt also 'm Akheraj Lunia v. Union of/ncffa2, wherein, the identiciil question of Jaw was involved. This Court quashed the impugned demand notice and directed the respondents to refund the cess whereversuch cesses are recovered or paid by the petitioners in pursuance to the impugned notices, within a period of three months. Learned State counsel submits that in the instant case, in frie notice of demand under challenge cess was for flie period from 01.1 1.1982 to 04.04.1^1, and the same has been validated under the provisions of Section 2(1)0f theCess and Other Taxes on Mineral (Validation) Act* 1992 (forshort "the VaSdation Acf). Thus, there is no question of refund of the amount for the period ending on 04.04.1991. There is no recoveiy thereafter for any amount and, as such, nothing survives in this matter. L(2001)7SCC358 !A]R2006CG72 '"^^ j ^-..^: 6. 2 ^s. 4. Thus, in view of foregoing and the law laid down by the Supreme Count In District Mining Officer & OttTers (supra), the previsions of the Vaiidation Act will not be effective after 04.04.1991 to collect the tex, as the validation was operative till 04.04.1991 only.Thus,ifanydemand is recoverable after 04.04.1991, the same is not sustainabte in law and no demand can be raisedand cess cannot be collected thereafter. 5. In view of foregoing, thewrit petition stands disposed of in terms of tfee order passed by this Court in Akheraj Lunia (supra). There is no order asto coste. Sd/- Sadsh K. Agnihotri Judge ashoR