IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 547 of 2001 Date of Decision: 8th August, 2008 M/s Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. & anr. …Petitioner(s) Versus. State of H.P. & anr …Respondent(s). Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge . The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja,, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting ? No. For the Petitioner (s): Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr. R.M.Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for respondents 1 to 3. Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate, for Respondent No.4. Deepak Gupta, J (Oral). The short question involved in this writ petition is whether the Gram Panchayat, Kashlog – respondent No.4 herein, is entitled to levy tax under Section 100(1)(d) of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 on limestone extracted within the limits of the Panchayat. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that petitioner No.1 is a Company duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner-Company has set up a plant for manufacturing clinker and cement at Darlaghat, within the State of H.P. The petitioner- - 2 - Company has been granted mining lease by the State and under the said mining lease, is extracting limestone from the said mines. The State of H.P. issued a notification dated 1.11.1999 under Section 100(1)(d) of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 permitting the Gram Panchayat to levy tax at the specified rates on extraction and export of sand, stone, bajri and slates. Section 100(1)(d) of the H.P. Panchayat Raj Act, reads as follows:- “Tax on extraction and export of sand, stone, bajri and slates: (i) Tax on extraction and export of sand, stone, bajri not exceeding Rs. 10/- per truck and Rs. 5/- per trolley; (ii) Tax on slates not exceeding Rs.50/- per truck” The relevant portion of the notification dated 1.11.1999 reads as follows:- “You are informed on the subject cited above that as per notification of Panchayati Raj, Himachal Pradesh Gazette of Himachal Pradesh which was published in the Gazette of Himachal Pradesh on 02.12.1999, I am told to direct you to collect the taxes as per the rate below from the owner of such mining lease/contracts and permit holders who are extracting sand, stone and aggregate within your Panchayat which shall be deposited by you in the income of your Panchayat: 1) Rs. 10/- per truck 2) Rs.5/- per trolley.” - 3 - Respondent No. 4 purportedly in exercise of the powers conferred by the aforesaid notification directed the petitioner- Company to pay tax at the rate of Rs. 10 /- per truck and Rs.5 /- per trolley on the extracted limestone. The petitioner-Company aggrieved by the said communication has approached this Court and prayed for quashing of the notices dated 8.6.2001 and 25.6.2001 (Annexure P9 & P12) whereby the respondent No.4 has directed it to deposit the tax. The petitioner- Company has also prayed for quashing of the notification dated 1.11.1999. We are not required to go into the second question as to whether the notification is valid or not in view of the decision, we are taking that the Panchayat was not entitled to recover tax on the extraction of limestone in terms of the notification. The Gram Panchayat under the notification is only empowered to levy tax on extraction and export of sand, stone, bajri and slates at the rates specified. This notification does not empower the Gram Panchayati to levy tax on the extraction of limestone. It is contended by Shri Bimal Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.4 that the stone has a wider - 4 - meaning and it also includes limestone. This contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. It is a well settled principle of law that the taxing statute has to be construed strictly. The tax can only be imposed on the specific articles mentioned in the charging statute unless the definition is inclusive or wide in its amplitude. The tax can only be levied at the rates specified under the enactment. In this case, the State specifically permitted the Panchayat to levy tax on sand, stone, bajri and slates only and limestone was not included. It would be pertinent to mention that the stand of the State even in this writ petition that under the terms of notification, the Panchayat is not entitled to impose tax on the extraction of limestone. In fact, the District Mining Officer in his communication dated 24.4.2001 had clearly informed the Panchayat-respondent No.4 that it was not entitled to levy tax on extraction of limestone. Even the State Geologist, in his letter dated 14.6.2001 had clearly informed the Panchayat- respondent No.4 about this fact. Thereafter the Panchayat- respondent No.4 made various representations to the State requesting that it may be permitted to levy tax on extraction of limestone. These representations were not accepted. - 5 - In view of the clear wording of the notification as well as the stand of the State, we are of the considered opinion that the Gram Panchayat is not entitled to levy tax on the extracted limestone and, therefore, we quash the notices Annexures P9 & P12. We, however, clarify that we have not decided any other question raised in the writ petition. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. No costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. August 8, 2008 ( V.K.Ahuja ), J. s