B*^ .^ ; Mn:. ^- f-f^- HI^H COURT OF CHHATriS&ARH AT BIL^SPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice S.K.Nayak, Chief Justice ms PETCTIONER ^-'•.•^^'^ ffy.. W^M. '^' RE5PON&ENTS PETI.TIONER5 Writ Petition No.5037/1997 Akheraj Lunia, Mine Owner and Contractor, "Century Cement", Post Office Baikunth -493 116, Distt. ftaipur (C.G.y Versus 1. 2. Union of India»through - Secretary, Law, New Delhi, State of Chhattisgarh, through-the Secretary, Mines nnd Minerats/ D.K.S.Building ftaipur (C.G.) 3. The Co!!ector (Min:w5 Officer), RaipL'r (c.e.) Writ Pstition No.4429/1997 1. Raymond Limited, having its Registered Office at Plot No.l56/H. No.2, Viflage Jadqoon, ftatnagiri (Mahorashtra State) and havin9 its Cement bivision at ^opaE Nagor, Bilaspur (M<P.) through Shri bipankor Sen, beputy Manager (Law) 2. Dipoinkar Sen, son of Sbri 5, Sen, aged 43 years, Shareholder ofvM/^ Raymond Limited, resident of 14/216, Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur (M,P*) Versus RESPON&ENTS 1< The State of AAadhya Pradesh, through the Secretary, Department of Mineraf ftesources, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal - 462 004. 2. The Cotlector. Bitaspur. (M.P.) 3. The Additionaf Codector, Bitaspur (M.P.) 4. T^e Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Steef ond Mines Deportment of Mines/ New Dethi. -^ ^'^ I" -s w Itl ff: KK i;i'! :r f^- ^ll:, B: K:-fi:' B.'! PETITEONER RE5PONC5ENT5 PETTTCONBR Writ Petition No. 6/1998 Associated Cement Compancies Ltd. A Limited Company, having is Registered Office at Mumbai and Unit at "JAMUL CEMENT WORKS' JAMUL. Distt burg (C.6.) Versus 1. Union of India, Through: Secretary, Law, NEW DELHI. 2, State of Chhattisgarh, through-the Secretar/, Mines and Minerals Resources, Mointratoy, D.!<.S.Bhawan;Rdpur (C,(5<) 3. Collector (Minin9 Officer), bUft^ (C.^.) Writ Petition No.5035/1997 Century Textiles and Industries Ltd, A Registered Limited Company/ftegistered under the Compoinif.^ Act, hoivin9 its Registered office at Dr. Annie Bosant ftoad, Bombay and Unit at Baikunth, by name "CENTUftY CEMENT", Po Bikunth, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ; Versus RE5PONDENTS 1. Union of India, through: Secretary, Law, New DefhL 2, State of Chhattisgarh, through-the Secretary, Mines and Minerafs, 0<K<5.Bhawoiri, MantrGiay/Raipur (C^,) 3. Collcctor (Mining Officer), Raipur (C.G.) 5hri Manindro Shri^asta^a, Sr. Counsel with Shri Ashish Shrivastava and Shri Amrito Das, Counsel for the petitioner (W.P.Nos. 5037/1997, 6/98 and 5035/1997. Shri B.P.Sharma, Counset for the petitioner (W.P.No.4429/97) Shri Vinay Harit, (?.A. for the State. of Chhattisgarh. -3 -\> fe m. MsIKN IS!1 ii11 ;<^::'. 8ii }^. ts^...! Bl-; ORAL ORbER (Passed on 23.2.2006) Havin^ heard the teamed coun^el for the parties and in the li^ht of the Jud^mentof the Apex Court in the case of District Minin^ Officer and Others v. Tata Iron and Stesl Co. And arwther , I am of ihe cons'idered opinion that the impugned demand notices have to be quashed, The only question that arises for decision-mokin^ i^ whether the petitioners are entitled to 5eek refund of the cesspaid by them to the State ^overnment in pursuance of the demands raised subsequent to 4,4.1991 with regard to cess collectabte prior to 4,4.1991. According to Shri Manindr-a Shrivastava, tearned senior counse! who argued on behdlf of the petitioners/ this point is also squarefy covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tata Iron und Steel Company whereos accordjng to Shri Vincy Harit/ Searned senior counse! for the Department, this precise question is not dea!t with by the Supreme Court and since the petitioners haye votuntarijy paid fne cess in response to the notices issued to them and -rfie cess so paid is a cess coliectQble tovt/ards the period anterior to 4.4.1991, they are not entitkd to seek refund of the cess so coliected. 2. Having perused the above Judgment of the Supreme Court, I hove absoiutety no doubt in my mind to say that the contention of the !ec.mcd senior Counse! for the Department is totafly untenable, The Supreme Court in more than one pbces in the judQment in the case of Tata Iron and Steel Company has opined that the Cess <xnd Other Taxes on Minerals (Validation) Act, 1992 (Validation Act No.16 of 1992) (hereinafter referred to as lthe Vaiidation Act') has not cnacted any provision enabling the State to coltectcollectablecess for a period prior to 4.4.1991. after 4.4.1991. It is also held by the 1(2001) 7 Supreme Court Cases 358 -L< 1 s i^,';:'' l:M-: ^ .1:.^, 'K : s. '^SiiM^ m^—. Apex Court that the Validation Act had operation onty upto 4.4.1991, In other words/according to the Hon'ble Supreme Court Qfter 4.4.199t^.the provisions of the Vatidation Act coutd not be pressed into service after 4.4.1991 to cotlect even collectabk tax due with regard to a period which is onterior to 4.4.1991. The reasoning of the Apex Gourt goes to show that after 4,4.1991, it would be totally iltega! for the Stcite to raise ademand for poyment of cess coilectable for any ;lp^rjod anterior to 4.4.1991. If this is the sum oind substance of several declarations made by the Apex Court in t^ie case of Tata Iron and SteeS Ccmpany, even assuming that the petitioners had votuntarily paid cess (that assertion of the State was seriously disputed by the petitioners) in pursuance of the demands raised by the State Authority, as stated by the learned senior counse! for the Department, that circumstance vvou!d never be a justification for the 5tate not to refund the cess so cotlected for the simple reason that in whatever mode, voluntarity or involuntarily the taxes are co!!ected by the State, such coltcction would be per se illegai and unauthorized. The State should have lega! authority to collect tax, othervvisc, its action would be unconstitutiona! being violafive of Article 265 of the Constitution. Admittedly, in al! these cases, the demands were raised only after 4.4.1991 directing the petitioners to pay cess on royalty payable for a perioddnterior to 4.4.1991. ; 4, In the result and for the foregoing reasons. I altow all ·riie.se writ petitions and quash the impugned demouid noti'ces. A directi'on shall issue to tfie respondents to refund the cess wherever such cesses are recovered or paid by the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned notices, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, 5, In the fo.cts and circumstances/the parties shaHbear their respective costs in these writ petitions. Chief Justice /T- :