9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 1277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ON MINERALS IN THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU IN THE CASE OF P. KANNADASAN AND ORS. VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS., 1996(5) S.C.C. 670, IS REQUIRED TO BE RECONSIDERED AND IT IS FOR THAT PURPOSE, THESE CASES HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO A THREE JUDGE BENCH. IN THE CASE ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT IN PATNA HIGH COURT IN S.L.P.(CIVIL) NO. 13102-13107 OF 1996, THE STATE THROUGH THE DISTRICT MINING OFFICER IS THE PETITIONER AND BY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, THE HIGH COURT THOUGH HAS UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF THE VALIDATION ACT, BUT HAS HELD THAT THE SAID VALIDATION ACT DOES NOT AUTHORISE THE RECOVERY OF ANY TAX OR CESS AFTER 4.4.91, EVEN IF THE LIABILITY WAS INCURRED UNDER THE VALIDATED LAWS BEFORE 4.4.1991 AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE DEMAND RAISED BY THE STATE WERE QUASHED AND THE STATE WAS RESTRAINED FROM TAKING ANY STEPS TO REALISE SUCH DEMAND. BE IT BE STATED THAT A BATCH OF WRIT PETITIONS WERE FILED BY SEVERAL ASSESSEES, ASSAILING THE LEGALITY OF THE DEMANDS RAISED BY THE MINING AUTHORITIES FOR PAYMENT OF CESS IN RESPECT OF SUCH DUES, WHICH WOULD BE LEVIABLE TILL 4TH OF APRIL, 1991. IN THE BATCH OF CASES RELATING TO STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, AFTER THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN KANNADASAN'S CASE, THE STA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PETITIONS TO BE TAGGED ON TO THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF PATNA HIGH COURT, BUT IN THOSE PETITIONS, NO FORMAL NOTICE HAD BEEN ISSUED TO THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND NECESSARILY THEREFORE, THOSE REVIEW PETITIONS HAVE TO BE DE-LINKED AND ONLY AFTER DISPOSAL OF THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS FILED, ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT OF PATNA HIGH COURT, THE REVIEW PETITIONS CAN BE LISTED FOR OBSERVANCE OF FORMALITIES AND DISPOSAL. THOUGH LARGE NUMBER OF COUNSEL ARGUED FOR DIFFERENT SETS OF PERSONS, BUT BASICALLY TWO CONTENTIONS WERE ADVANCED. ONE BY MR. RAKESH DWIVEDI, THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL, APPEARING FOR THE STATE OF BIHAR, CONTENDING THAT THE VALIDATION ACT AUTHORISES THE STATE GOVERNMENTS TO LEVY AND REALISE TAX WHICH WERE DUE UP TO THE DATE OF VALIDATION, NAMELY, 4.4.1991 AND THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY EMBARGO ON THE STATE'S POWER TO REALISE THE SAME NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE LIFE OF THE VALIDATION ACT WAS ONLY UPTO 4.4.1991. THIS STAND OF MR. DWIVEDI, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE STATE OF BIHAR WAS SUPPORTED BY MR. CHAUDHARY, APPEARING FOR THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, MR. SANJAY HEGDE, APPEARING FOR THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AS WELL AS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , MADHYA PRADESH, TAMIL NADU, MAHARASHTRA AND ORISSA HAD ENACTED SEVERAL LEGISLATIONS AUTHORISING LEVY ON MINERALS. IN THE CASE OF INDIA CEMENT LTD. VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU - 1990 (1) SUPREME COURT CASES 12, A SEVEN JUDGE BENCH OF THIS COURT CAME TO HOLD THAT THE LEVY IN QUESTION IS ESSENTIALLY A LEVY ON MINERALS AND IS RELATABLE TO ENTRIES 23 AND 50 OF LIST II, BUT ON ACCOUNT OF DECLARATION MADE BY PARLIAMENT CONTAINED IN SECTION 2 OF MINES AND MINERALS (REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 1957, THE STATE LEGISLATURES HAVE BEEN DENUDED OF THE POWER TO LEVY TAX ON MINERALS AND, AS SUCH, THE IMPOSITION OF TAX ON MINERALS UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE TAMIL NADU PANCHAYAT ACT, 1958 IS ULTRA VIRES. THIS COURT FURTHER HOLD THAT THE EARLIER DECISION OF THIS COURT IN HRS MURTHY'S CASE - 1964 (6) SUPREME COURT REPORTS 666, HAS NOT BEEN CORRECTLY DECIDED. SOMETIME THEREAFTER A THREE JUDGE BENCH OF THIS COURT DECIDED THE CASE OF ORISSA CEMENT - 1991 SUPPL. (1) SUPREME COURT CASES -430, AND FOLLOWING THE LARGER BENCH DECISION OF THIS COURT IN INDIA CEMENT DECLARED IDENTICAL LEVIES IMPOSED BY THE STATES OF ORISSA, BIHAR AND MADHYA PRADESH TO BE INCOMPETENT AND VOID. THE COURT FURTHER HELD THAT TH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I) THE PREAMBLE OF THE ACT STATING TO VALIDATE IMPOSITION AND COLLECTION OF CESSES AND CERTAIN TAXES ON MINERALS UNDER CERTAIN STATE LAWS AS WELL AS THE PROVISIONS OF THE VALIDATION ACT CREATE THE LEVY AS WELL AS VALIDATE THE RECOVERY ALREADY MADE AND THE EXPRESSION 'COLLECTION' DOES NOT MEAN WHAT IS ALREADY COLLECTED ALONE BUT MEANS THE FUTURE COLLECTION AS WELL. NEITHER THE PREAMBLE NOR SECTION 2 SAY THAT WHAT HAS ALREADY COLLECTED ALONE IS VALIDATED. (IV) THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT A PARLIAMENTARY ENACTMENT WILL NOT PERMIT THE LEVY OF TAXES AND CESSES AT DIFFERENT RATES IN DIFFERENT STATES IN THE COUNTRY AS THAT WOULD BE DISCRIMINATORY AND VALIDATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION IS MISCONCEIVED AS PARLIAMENT HAS INTERVENED AND BY ENACTING THE IMPUGNED LAW IN EXERCISE OF ITS UNDOUBTED POWER VALIDATED THE LEVY AND ALL THAT FLOWS FROM IT. (V) THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DENUDATION OF THE POWER OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO LEVY TAXES ON MINERALS IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE AND UNLIMITED ONE, IS WHOLLY MISCONCEIVED, PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN INDIA CEMENT AND ORISSA CEMENT. (VI) THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TAX ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SLATION. (G) THE SUBMISSION THAT PARLIAMENT DID NOT HAVE THE COMPETENCE TO LEGISLATE ON THE SUBJECT MATTER FELL WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE, PROCEEDS ON THE ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION THAT THE SUBJECT MATTER WITH WHICH THE PARLIAMENT DEALT WITH IN THE VALIDATION ACT WAS A STATE SUBJECT CONTAINED IN LIST II OF 7TH SCHEDULE. (H) THE COMPETENCE OF PARLIAMENT TO MAKE ENACTMENT IS BEYOND CHALLENGE. (I) THE VALIDATION ACT CANNOT BE IMPUGNED ON THE GROUND THAT IT SOUGHT TO RE-VALIDATE THE SAID ACT WHICH WAS DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY THE SUPREME COURT. THE POWER OF THE PARLIAMENT TO LEGISLATE RETROSPECTIVELY CANNOT BE DISPUTED. CONSEQUENTLY THE PARLIAMENT HAD POWER TO LEGISLATE ON THE TOPIC IT COULD MAKE AN ACT ON THE TOPIC BY ANY DRAFTING MEANS INCLUDING BY REFERENTIAL LEGISLATION. (J) THERE IS NOTHING IN THE IMPUGNED ACT WITH REGARD TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE TAXES COLLECTED OR ITS DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN THE STATES. IT CANNOT THEREFORE BE URGED THAT ANY PROVISION IN THE IMPUGNED ACT RUNS CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME WITH REGARD TO THE ASSIGNMENT TO THE STATES OF THE TAXES REALISED, OR THEIR DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN THE STATES. (K) CONSIDERING THE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EMANDS THE STATE THROUGH ITS MINING OFFICER IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS COURT. MR. RAKESH DWIVEDI, THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE STATE OF BIHAR CONTENDED THAT THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 2(1) OF THE VALIDATION ACT IS UNAMBIGUOUS AND IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF THE ONLY CONSTRUCTION THAT THE RELEVANT LAW SPECIFIED IN THE SCHEDULE WAS ENACTED BY THE PARLIAMENT AND REMAINED VALID UPTO 4TH OF APRIL, 1991 AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE STATE IS ENTITLED TO COLLECT THE CESS OR TAXES ON MINERALS, WHICH BECAME PAYABLE UPTO 4TH OF APRIL, 1991. ABSENCE OF ANY LAW SUBSEQUENT TO 4TH OF APRIL, 1991 WOULD NOT STAND AS A BAR ON LEVY AND COLLECTION OF THE CESS AND TAXES ON MINERALS AND ANY TAX OR CESS, WHICH IS VALIDLY LEVIABLE UNDER A VALID LAW COULD BE COLLECTED EVEN AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE LAW IN QUESTION. THE HIGH COURT, THEREFORE, WAS IN ERROR IN LIMITING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(1) OF THE VALIDATION ACT BY MAKING REFERENCE TO THE STATEMENT OF OBJECT AND REASONS. MR. DWIVEDI FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE PREAMBLE ALSO UNEQUIVOCALLY INDICATES THAT THE ACT IS TO VALIDATE THE IMPOSITION AND COLLECTION OF CESS AND CERTAIN OTHER TAXES ON MINERALS UNDER CERTAIN STATE LAWS. NECESSARILY, THEREFORE, THE RIGHT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CONSTRUING SUCH A UNIQUE PIECE OF LEGISLATION, THE COURTS MUST ADOPT A DYNAMIC APPROACH AND IT DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ELABORATE ARGUMENT TO DISCOVER THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT WHICH HAS BEEN WELL EXPRESSED IN THE LANGUAGE USED IN THE STATUTE ITSELF. ACCORDING TO MR. DWIVEDI, THE VALIDATION ACT CANNOT BE HELD TO BE A TEMPORARY STATUTE AND REMAINS AS A VALID PIECE OF LEGISLATION, CONFERRING THE RIGHT TO COLLECT AND MAKE THE LEVY, WHICH WOULD BE COLLECTABLE UPTO 4TH OF APRIL, 1991 AND THE PROVISIONS OF GENERAL CLAUSES ACT WOULD BE APPLICABLE. MR. DWIVEDI URGED THAT THERE IS NO QUARREL WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROPOSITION ENGRAFTED IN ARTICLE 265 OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT LEVY AND COLLECTION SHOULD BE BY AUTHORITY OF LAW. BUT IN RESPECT OF MINERALS EXTRACTED UPTO 4TH OF APRIL, 1991, IF ANY CESS OR TAX IS TO BE LEVIED AND COLLECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MACHINERY PROVIDED FOR THE SAME, THAT RIGHT OF THE STATE WILL NOT GET FRUSTRATED, MERELY BECAUSE THE LEGISLATION IN QUESTION IN THE EYE OF LAW WAS EFFECTIVE TILL 4TH OF APRIL, 1991. THE COUNSEL URGED THAT WHAT THE PARLIAMENT INTENDED, IS THAT THE STATE COULD LEVY AND COLLECT CESS ON MINERALS EXTRACTED TILL 4TH OF APRIL, 1991, BUT WOULD NOT BE E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O BE A TEMPORARY ACT, IF THE LIABILITY IS OF AN ENDURING NATURE, THE SAME WOULD SURVIVE EVEN AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE ACT ITSELF, AS WAS HELD BY THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF BHUPENDRA BOSE, 1962 SUPP. (2) S.C.R. 380. ACCORDING TO MR. DWIVEDI, BY PROCESS OF RE-ENACTMENT OF THE STATE LEGISLATIONS BY THE PARLIAMENTS ITSELF, THE PARLIAMENT WAS IN FACT BALANCING BETWEEN THE PUBLIC INTEREST INVOLVED IN THE MATTER OF DIRECTION OF REFUND BY THE SUPREME COURT AND AS SUCH WANTED TO PLACE ALL THE STATES UNIFORMLY BY MAKING THE LEGISLATION ENACTED TILL 4TH OF APRIL, 1991. IN THE MATTER OF BALANCING SUCH PUBLIC INTEREST, IT WOULD BE UNREASONABLE TO HOLD THAT PERSONS FROM WHOM TAX COULD NOT BE COLLECTED WOULD BE IN A BETTER POSITION THAN THE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE TAX HAD ALREADY BEEN COLLECTED. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT WOULD BE MORE LOGICAL TO HOLD THAT LIABILITY TO PAY THE TAX ON THE MINERALS EXTRACTED UPTO 4TH OF APRIL, 1991 WOULD BE UNIFORMLY APPLIED AND, THEREFORE, THE STATE WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE LEVY AND COLLECT THE SAME. WITH REFERENCE TO THE VARIOUS VALIDATING ACTS AND THE PATTERN OF VALIDATION, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE ASSESSEES, MR. DWIVEDI CONTENDS THAT WHILE CONSTRUING THE PROVISION ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 (1) SCR 44. MR. SANJAY HEGDE, LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ADOPTED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY MR. RAKESH DWIVEDI, APPEARING FOR THE STATE OF BIHAR. MR. N.N. GOSWAMI, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL, APPEARING FOR THE UNION OF INDIA, SUBMITTED THAT TO AVOID ANY DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN THE GROUP OF PERSONS FROM WHOM THE CESS AND TAX ON MINERALS HAVE BEEN COLLECTED, AND THE OTHERS FROM WHOM IT HAS NOT BEEN COLLECTED THOUGH THEY ARE LIABLE, THE LEGISLATION IN QUESTION EVEN THOUGH GOES BEYOND THE OBJECT, MUST BE CONSTRUED TO HOLD THAT IT PERMITS LEVY AND COLLECTION OF THE DUES WHICH WOULD BE COLLECTABLE UPTO 4.4.1991. MR. SHANTI BHUSHAN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE IN BIHAR CASE CONTENDED THAT ARTICLE 265 OF THE CONSTITUTION PUTS AN EMBARGO THAT NO TAX COULD BE LEVIED OR COLLECTED EXCEPT BY AN AUTHORITY OF LAW, AND IF, LAW IN QUESTION NEVER REMAINED IN FORCE AFTER 4.4.1991 THEN THE QUESTION OF CONFERRING RIGHT UPON THE STATE TO LEVY OR COLLECTION DOES NOT ARISE. THE RIGHT TO LEVY AND COLLECTION, WHICH WAS THERE WITH THE STATE HAVING DISAPPEARED WITH EFFECT FROM 4.4.1991, THE DATE ON WHICH THE LIFE OF THE ACT EXPIRES, UNLESS THERE IS ANY PROVISI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... THE JUDGMENT OF THE PATNA HIGH COURT, CONTENDED, THAT AS SEVERAL STATE LEGISLATIONS WERE BEING GIVEN LIFE THROUGH PARLIAMENTARY ENACTMENT, THE PARLIAMENT THOUGHT IT FIT TO PUT UP THE COMMON DATE FOR ALL THE STATE LAWS TILL THE DATE OF THE JUDGMENT IN ORISSA CEMENT CASE, 4TH APRIL, 1991, WITH THE SOLE OBJECT THAT NONE OF THE COLLECTION MADE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE REFUNDED. BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROVISION IN THE VALIDATING ACT PROVIDING FOR A RIGHT TO MAKE LEVY AND COLLECTION BEYOND THE DATE AND SINCE SECTION 6 OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT HAS NO APPLICATION IT WOULD BE WHOLLY ILLEGAL TO HOLD THAT THE STATE CAN MAKE LEVY AND COLLECT TAX EVEN AFTER 4.4.1991 IN RESPECT OF THE DUES WHICH WERE COLLECTABLE UPTO THAT DATE. ACCORDING TO MR. PARASARAN, THE PARLIAMENT CAME FORWARD BY FICTIONALLY ENACTING PROVISIONS OF DIFFERENT STATE LAWS DEALING WITH THE TAX AND CESS ON MINERALS AS AN ACT OF BALANCING PUBLIC INTEREST, AS OTHERWISE IT WAS FELT THAT IT WOULD BE A SEVERE BLOW ON THE STATE REVENUE IF THE STATE IS REQUIRED TO REFUND THE TAXES AND CESS ALREADY COLLECTED. IT IS THUS CONTENDED BY MR. PARASARAN THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN KANNADASAN IS ERRONEOUS AND IT MUST BE HELD THAT BY ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... THE CESS AND TAXES, WHICH COULD BE COLLECTED UPTO 4.4.91, AS CONTENDED BY MR. DWIVEDI, APPEARING FOR THE STATE OF BIHAR. ACCORDING TO DR. SINGHVI, WHEN THIS COURT IN ORISSA CEMENT'S CASE, FOLLOWING THE EARLIER JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IN INDIA CEMENT, INVALIDATED LEVIES MADE UNDER DIFFERENT STATUTES ENACTED BY THE STATES OF ORISSA, MADHYA PRADESH AND BIHAR AND ISSUED A MANDAMUS, DIRECTING REFUND OF THE MONIES COLLECTED UNDER SUCH VOID STATUTES, THE STATE GOVERNMENTS WOULD HAVE BEEN UNDER A CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION TO CARRY OUT THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED AND WERE BOUND TO REFUND THE MONIES COLLECTED FROM THE RESPECTIVE STATES FROM THE DATE OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT, WHICH WOULD HAVE RUINOUS CONSEQUENCES ON THE STATES' ECONOMY. WHEN THE STATE GOVERNMENTS APPRISED THESE PROBLEMS TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, THE PARLIAMENT INTERVENED AND TO SAVE THE STATE GOVERNMENTS FROM REFUNDING THE MONIES COLLECTED, ENACTED THE CESS AND OTHER TAXES ON MINERALS (VALIDATION) ACT, 1992 TO VALIDATE IMPOSITION AND COLLECTION OF SUCH LEVIES UNDER THE STATE LAWS WHICH WERE DECLARED VOID BY THE COURT. THE STATEMENT OF OBJECT AND REASONS OF THE VALIDATION ACT UNEQUIVOCALLY PROCLAIMS THAT THE ACT WAS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TO BE COLLECTED AFTER 4.4.91. WITH REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 265 OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE LEARNED COUNSEL URGED THAT THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IMPOSES A LIMITATION ON THE TAXING POWER OF THE STATE IN SO FAR AS IT PROVIDES THAT NO TAX CAN BE LEVIED OR COLLECTED EXCEPT BY AUTHORITY OF LAW. THUS, NOT ONLY THE LEVY, BUT ALSO THE COLLECTION MUST BE ONLY BY AUTHORITY OF LAW. THE EXPRESSION AUTHORITY OF LAW WOULD MEAN THAT THERE SHOULD BE IN EXISTENCE, A LAWFUL ENACTMENT, WHICH AUTHORISES THE LEVY OR COLLECTION OF A TAX. AFTER 4.4.91, THERE BEING NO VALID LAW IN EXISTENCE, WHICH COULD AUTHORISE COLLECTION OF THE LEVY OF CESS AND TAXES ON MINERALS, IT IS DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND HOW THE STATE COULD BE PERMITTED TO MAKE THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF THE DUES SUBSEQUENT TO 4.4.91. ACCORDING TO DR. SINGHVI, ANY INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE VALIDATION ACT, AUTHORISING REALISATION OF LEVY AFTER 4.4.91 FOR THE PAST PERIOD WOULD BE CONTRARY TO EQUITY, JUSTICE AND FAIR-PLAY. MR. GANGULI, THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL, APPEARING FOR THE INDIAN ALUMINIUM CO. LTD., RESPONDENT IN SLP(CIVIL) NO. 13104 OF 1996 AS WELL AS INTERVENOR INDIA CEMENT, CONTENDED THAT THE JUDGMENT IN KANNADASAN'S CASE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15.2.1992. SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 2 INCORPORATES THE CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE IN ARTICLE 265 AND, THEREFORE, ANY AMOUNT PAID WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF LAW BECOMES REFUNDABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND COULD NOT BE RETAINED BY THE STATE. SUB-SECTION (3), THUS WAS ENACTED TO CLARIFY THAT ONLY TO A LIMITED EXTENT SUCH PROCEEDINGS FOR REFUND OF TAXES COULD BE MAINTAINED, AND IT INCORPORATES A LIMITED SAVING CLAUSE AND IS A SPECIAL PROVISION REGARDING SAVING. PARLIAMENT, THUS DID NOT WISH THAT THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES CONTAINED IN SECTION 6 OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT BE MADE APPLICABLE TO THE VALIDATION ACT AND HENCE CHOSE TO ENACT A LIMITED SAVING CLAUSE, AS CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 2. THIS BEING THE POSITION, THE PATNA HIGH COURT WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF THE VALIDATION ACT AND IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO RIGHT IN THE STATE TO MAKE ANY FRESH LEVY OR COLLECTION AND ONLY THE LEVIES ALREADY COLLECTED WOULD NOT BE REFUNDED. ACCORDING TO MR. GANGULI, THE ENACTMENTS MENTIONED IN THE SCHEDULE REMAINED IN FORCE ONLY UPTO 4TH OF APRIL, 1991 AND, THEREFORE, NEITHER THERE WOULD BE ANY CHARGING PROVISION, NOR MACHINERY UNDER THE ACT MENTIONED IN THE SCHEDULE AF ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D AND THE LACK OF LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE WAS CURED BY THE PARLIAMENT STEPPING IN, FOR ENSURING THAT THE STATES WHICH WERE AFFECTED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN INDIA CEMENT CASE AND ORISSA CEMENT CASE WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO REFUND. ACCORDING TO MR. RANJIT KUMAR, THE STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS CAN BE WELL LOOKED INTO FOR ASCERTAINING THE INTENTION OF THE PARLIAMENT IN ENACTING THE VALIDATION ACT AND THE SAID STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS ARE CATEGORICAL IN TERMS AND ONLY REFERS TO WHAT HAD ALREADY BEEN COLLECTED, WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO BE REFUNDED. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, THE RELEVANT STATE LAWS, WHICH BECAME THE CENTRAL LAW BY VIRTUE OF FICTIONAL RE-ENACTMENT, UNDOUBTEDLY ARE TEMPORARY ACT AND AFTER THE EXPIRY DOES NOT ALLOW ANY FURTHER ACTION UNDER THE EXPIRED ACT. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, THE LEARNED COUNSEL PLACED RELIANCE ON THE STATUTORY INTERPRETATION BY FRANCIS BENNION, FIRST EDITION, PARAGRAPH 178 AS WELL AS CRAIES ON STATUTE LAW AT PAGES 407- 409. WITH REFERENCE TO THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THIS COURT IN KANNADASAN THAT THE ACT MUST BE HELD TO BE AN ACT BY INCORPORATION, MR. RANJIT KUMAR SUBMITTED THAT THE LEGISLATION BY INCORPORATION OF ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NG AND THE ASSESSE, THEREFORE, NEVER PASSED ON THE CESS LEVIED TO ANY CONSUMER NOR COULD IT DO SO BECAUSE THE COMMODITY WAS A CONTROLLED COMMODITY AND THE LITIGATION ENDED WITH A JUDGMENT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE. TO RE-OPEN SUCH CASES IN THE GARB OF THE VALIDATION ACT AND SEEKING TO IMPOSE LEVY AND COLLECTION FROM THE YEAR 1964 WOULD NOT ONLY BE UNREASONABLE, BUT ALSO WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE VERY JUDGMENT PASSED INTER-PARTIES AND THE COURT HAVING STAYED THE OPERATION OF THE ACT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO MR. RANJIT KUMAR, THE ASSESSEE HAVING NOT COLLECTED THE CESS FROM THE END USER, WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PAY THE SAME, IN VIEW OF THE INTERPRETATION GIVEN BY THIS COURT IN KANNADASAN'S CASE, AND SUCH A VIEW WILL BE WHOLLY UNREASONABLE AND WOULD BE BEYOND THE OBJECT FOR WHICH THE PARLIAMENT INTERVENED AND VALIDATED, TO SAVE THE STATE GOVERNMENTS FROM A DIFFICULT FINANCIAL SITUATION. MR. RANJIT KUMAR, LASTLY SUBMITTED THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN KANNADASAN MUST BE HELD TO BE WRONGLY DECIDED AND MUST HAVE TO BE RECONSIDERED. MR. AJIT KUMAR SINHA, APPEARING FOR BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED, PETITIONER IN SLP(CIVIL) NO. 7555 OF 1998, SUBMITTED THAT THE VALIDATION ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S AND OTHER TAXES ON MINERALS FICTIONALLY MUST BE HELD TO HAVE BEEN ENACTED BY THE PARLIAMENT, AND KEEPING THOSE PROVISIONS ALIVE TILL 4TH APRIL, 1991. IT MAY BE BORNE IN MIND THAT UNDER THE VALIDATION ACT PARLIAMENT NEVER RE- ENACTED THE 11 ACTS MENTIONED IN THE SCHEDULE, BUT MERELY PROVIDED THE LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE FOR THOSE PROVISIONS IN THOSE ACTS WHICH RELATED TO CESSES OR TAXES ON MINERALS. THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY BEHIND THE ENACTMENT OF THE AFORESAID VALIDATION ACT UNEQUIVOCALLY POINTS OUT TO THE FACT THAT THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAD ENACTED DIFFERENT STATUTES CONFERRING RIGHT OF LEVY AND COLLECTION OF CESS AND TAXES ON MINERALS, AND THE SUPREME COURT CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE STATE LEGISLATURE DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE LAW CONFERRING RIGHT TO LEVY AND COLLECTION ON MINERALS AS THE FIELD HAD BEEN OCCUPIED BY THE UNION LEGISLATURE ON THE ENACTMENT OF THE MINES AND MINERALS REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1957. THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN INDIA CEMENT AS WELL AS IN ORISSA CEMENT NECESSARILY LEAD TO A SITUATION WHEREUNDER NOT ONLY THE 11 ACTS MENTIONED IN THE SCHEDULE OF THE VALIDATION ACT WERE DECLARED NULL AND VOID, BUT ALSO THE COLLECTIONS MADE UNDER SUCH INVALI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PRESENT EXPERIENCE. IT MAY ALSO BE DESIGNED BY USE OF GENERAL WORDS TO COVER SIMILAR PROBLEMS ARISING IN FUTURE. BUT, FROM THE VERY NATURE OF THINGS, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ANTICIPATE FULLY THE VARIED SITUATIONS ARISING IN FUTURE IN WHICH THE APPLICATION OF THE LEGISLATION IN HAND MAY BE CALLED FOR, AND, WORDS CHOSEN TO COMMUNICATE SUCH INDEFINITE REFERENTS ARE BOUND TO BE IN MANY CASES LACKING IN CLARITY AND PRECISION AND THUS GIVING RISE TO CONTROVERSIAL QUESTIONS OF CONSTRUCTION. THE PROCESS OF CONSTRUCTION COMBINES BOTH LITERAL AND PURPOSIVE APPROACHES. IN OTHER WORDS THE LEGISLATIVE INTENTION I.E., THE TRUE OR LEGAL MEANING OF AN ENACTMENT IS DERIVED BY CONSIDERING THE MEANING OF THE WORDS USED IN THE ENACTMENT IN THE LIGHT OF ANY DISCERNIBLE PURPOSE OR OBJECT WHICH COMPREHENDS THE MISCHIEF AND ITS REMEDY TO WHICH THE ENACTMENT IS DIRECTED. THE AFORESAID PRINCIPLE WAS ENUNCIATED AND APPLIED BY THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. KAILASH CHAND MAHAJAN - 1992 SUPPL. (2) SCC 351. LORD SOMERVELL IN THE CASE OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL VS. HRH PRINCE ERNEST AUGUSTUS (1957) 1 ALL ER 49 HAS STATED THE MISCHIEF AGAINST WHICH THE STATUTE IS DIRECTED AND, PERHAPS THOUGH TO AN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PROVISIONS OF DIFFERENT STATE LEGISLATIONS WHICH LEGISLATIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN STRUCK DOWN FOR LACK OF LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE. AS THE PARLIAMENT THOUGHT THAT ON ACCOUNT OF THE JUDGMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS WOULD BE LIABLE TO MAKE REFUND, OF CESS AND OTHER TAXES COLLECTED BY THEM, WHICH WAS LIKELY TO HAVE A SERIOUS IMPACT ON STATE REVENUE, AND TO PREVENT THE LIABILITY OF REFUND, THE PARLIAMENT INTENDED TO VALIDATE COLLECTION OF LEVIES ALREADY MADE BY THE STATE GOVERNMENTS UP TO 4TH APRIL, 1991. THIS CONCLUSION OF OURS IS BASED ON, NOT ONLY THE LANGUAGE USED IN SECTION 2(1) BUT ALSO THE STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS, WHICH CLEARLY ENUNCIATES THE SAME. THE STATEMENTS OF OBJECTS OF REASONS IS EXTRACTED HEREINBELOW IN EXTENSO:- STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS.-CERTAIN STATE ACTS IMPOSING CESSES AND OTHER TAXES ON MINERALS HAD BEEN STRUCK DOWN BY COURTS INCLUDING THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN DIFFERENT CASES. AS A RESULT OF JUDGMENTS IN THESE CASES, STATE GOVERNMENT BECAME LIABLE TO REFUND CESSES AND OTHER TAXES COLLECTED BY THEM. SINCE REFUND WAS LIKELY TO HAVE A SERIOUS IMPACT ON STATE REVENUES OF THE CONCERNED STATE GOVERNMENTS AND HAVING REGARD TO THE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... THE SITUATION UNDER WHICH THE ACT WAS ENACTED AND A VOID ACT WAS GIVEN LIFE UPTO A PARTICULAR PERIOD BY DRAFTING LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE FOR THE SAME IN THE TEETH OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 265 OF THE CONSTITUTION, WE ARE PERSUADED TO ACCEPT THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE IN DIFFERENT CASES, MR. SHANTI BHUSHAN, MR. KK VENUGOPAL, MR. PARASARAN, DR. SINGHVI, MR. RANJIT KUMAR, AND OTHERS THAT THE SAID VALIDATION ACT CANNOT BE CONSTRUED TO HAVE CONFERRED A RIGHT TO MAKE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF CESS OR TAXES ON MINERALS WHICH WAS COLLECTABLE UP TO 4TH APRIL, 1991, AS WAS HELD IN KANNADASAN'S CASE, BUT IT MERELY VALIDATED THE COLLECTIONS ALREADY MADE SO THAT THE STATE WILL NOT BE BURDENED WITH THE LIABILITY OF REFUNDING THE AMOUNT, ALREADY COLLECTED UNDER VOID LAW. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THEREFORE, THE EARLIER DECISION IN KANNADASAN'S CASE TO THE CONTRARY MUST BE HELD TO HAVE BEEN NOT CORRECTLY DECIDED. AT THIS STAGE IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO DISCUSS THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 265 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ITS IMPACT ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE VALIDATION ACT. UNDER ARTICLE 265 OF THE CONSTITUTION, NO TAX SHALL BE LEVIED ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LD NOT TO HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY DECIDED. LET US NOW EXAMINE THE QUESTION, AS TO WHETHER THE STATUTE IS A TEMPORARY STATUTE OR NOT? WHEN WE EXAMINE THIS QUESTION IN THE CASE IN HAND, WE ARE NOT EXAMINING THE VALIDATION ACT, BUT WE ARE REQUIRED TO EXAMINE THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE DIFFERENT STATE LAWS, INCLUDED IN THE SCHEDULE TO THE VALIDATION ACT, WHICH LAWS HAD BEEN DECLARED ULTRA VIRES BY THIS COURT IN THE DECISION OF INDIA CEMENT AND ORISSA CEMENT, ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE AND THAT LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE HAS BEEN PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN CONFERRED BY VIRTUE OF A DEEMING ENACTMENT BY PARLIAMENT AND FURTHER ENACTING THAT SUCH PROVISIONS SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN REMAINED IN FORCE UPTO THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 1991. A STATUTE CAN BE SAID TO BE EITHER PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY. IT IS PERPETUAL WHEN NO TIME IS FIXED FOR ITS DURATION AND SUCH A STATUTE REMAINS IN FORCE UNTIL ITS REPEAL WHICH MAY BE EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. BUT A STATUTE IS TEMPORARY WHEN ITS DURATION IS ONLY FOR A SPECIFIED TIME AND SUCH A STATUTE EXPIRES ON THE EXPIRY OF THE SPECIFIED TIME, UNLESS IT IS REPEALED EARLIER. THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE DIFFERENT STATE LAWS RELATING TO CESSES OR TAXE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RDINANCE WAS ASSAILED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT, THE HIGH COURT STRUCK DOWN THE ORDINANCE AS HAVING CONTRAVENED ARTICLE 14 AND IT WAS HELD TO HAVE OFFENDED ARTICLE 254(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION. ON APPEAL, THIS COURT HELD THAT THE ORDINANCE DID NOT OFFEND ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THAT IT EFFECTIVELY REMOVED THE DEFECTS IN THE ELECTORAL ROLLS FOUND BY THE FIRST JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT. WHEN ARGUMENTS WERE ADVANCED THAT THE INVALIDITY OF THE ELECTORAL ROLLS AND THE ELECTIONS TO THE MUNICIPALITY DID NOT REVIVE ON THE EXPIRY OF THE ORDINANCE, THAT WAS REPELLED BY THIS COURT, THAT THE RIGHT THAT HAD BEEN CREATED BY THE STATUTE NAMELY THE VALIDATING ORDINANCE, IS OF AN ENDURING CHARACTER AND HAS VESTED IN THE PERSON CONCERNED, NAMELY THE VOTERS, A RIGHT TO VOTE AS WELL AS THE ELECTED COUNCILORS. THAT RIGHT CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY MERELY BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE HAS LAPSED, SINCE THE OBJECT OF THE ORDINANCE WAS TO REMOVE THE INVALIDITY PERMANENTLY. IT IS IN THAT CONTEXT THE COURT OBSERVED THAT IF THE RIGHT CREATED BY A STATUTE IS OF AN ENDURING NATURE AND HAS VESTED IN THE PERSON, THAT RIGHT CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY, BECAUSE THE STATUTE BY WHICH IT CREATED HAS EXPIRED. IN APPLYING THAT PRINCI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... POWERS VESTED IN THE GOVERNOR GENERAL OF INDIA UNDER SECTION 72 OF THE NINTH SCHEDULE TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935 READ WITH INDIA AND BURMA (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) ACT, 1940, CALLED THE COAL PRODUCTION FUND ORDINANCE, 1944, FOR CONSTITUTING A FUND FOR FINANCING OF ACTIVITIES FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF PRODUCTION, MARKETING AND DISTRIBUTION OF COAL AND COKE. THE SAID ORDINANCE WAS A PERMANENT ONE AND WAS TO BE CONTINUED TO BE IN FORCE TILL REPEALED, AS IS APPARENT FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN HANSRAJ MOOLJI'S CASE, 1957 S.C.R. 634. A SECOND ORDINANCE WAS PROMULGATED, REPEALING THE EARLIER ONE ON 26TH OF APRIL, 1947 AND IN THE REPEALING ORDINANCE, AN EXPRESS TERM WAS THERE, MAKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6 OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, SHALL APPLY IN RESPECT OF THE REPEAL. THE QUESTION AROSE WHETHER AFTER EXPIRY OF THE LIFE OF THE REPEALING ORDINANCE ON NOVEMBER 01, 1947, WHAT WOULD BE ITS EFFECT IN RESPECT OF THE LIABILITY CONTINUED IN RESPECT OF THE PAST TRANSACTIONS? THIS COURT HELD THAT THE REPEALING ORDINANCE HAD CONTINUED THE LIFE OF THE ORIGINAL , WHICH WAS A PERMANENT ONE, IN RESPECT OF PAST TRANSACTIONS AND, THEREFORE, THE EXPIRY OF ITS LIFE(LIFE OF REPEALING O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... URT ALSO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WHICH ARE CONCLUDED AND COMPLETED UNDER THE TEMPORARY STATUTE WHILE THE SAME WAS IN FORCE OFTEN ENDURE AND CONTINUE IN BEING DESPITE THE EXPIRY OF THE STATUTE AND SO DO THE RIGHTS OR OBLIGATIONS ACQUIRED OR INCURRED THEREUNDER DEPENDING UPON THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE AND NATURE AND CHARACTER OF THE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES. APPLYING THE AFORESAID RATIO TO THE CASE IN HAND, IT IS DIFFICULT FOR US TO HOLD THAT THE STATE LAWS WHICH INFUSED LIFE INTO IT UNDER THE VALIDATION ACT BY A FICTIONAL ENACTMENT OF THE LAWS BY PARLIAMENT AND KEEPING IT ALIVE TILL 4TH APRIL, 1991, CAN AT ALL BE SAID TO HAVE CREATED ANY RIGHT ON THE STATE TO LEVY AND COLLECT THE CESS AND TAX ON MINERALS WHICH CAN BE HELD TO BE OF ENDURING NATURE SO AS TO ENABLE THE STATE TO LEVY AND COLLECT EVEN AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE STATE LAWS IN QUESTION. CONSEQUENTLY, THE AFORESAID DECISION IS ALSO OF NO ASSISTANCE TO THE STATE OF BIHAR. THE ONLY OTHER CASE RELIED UPON BY MR. DWIVEDI IS THE CASE OF T.VENKATA REDDY AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH - 1985 (3) SCC 198. IN THIS CASE BY VIRTUE OF PROMULGATION OF AN ORDINANCE CERTAIN POSTS WERE ABOLISHED, BUT THE ORDINANCE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IN CASE OF ORISSA, THE DATE WAS 22ND DECEMBER, 1989 AND IN CASE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THE DATE WAS 28TH OF MARCH, 1986. IT WAS HELD THAT ANY CESS COLLECTED AFTER THE AFORESAID DATES BY THE RESPECTIVE STATES HAS TO BE REFUNDED AND THE STATES CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO RETAIN THE CESS COLLECTED. IT IS TO OBVIATE THE AFORESAID DIFFICULTY, PARTICULARLY IN CASE OF STATES OF ORISSA AND MADHYA PRADESH, THOUGH SUCH DIFFICULTY WAS NOT THERE IN CASE OF BIHAR, THE PARLIAMENT CAME FORWARD WITH THE VALIDATION ACT. IT IS TRUE, AS MR. DWIVEDI CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NO NECESSITY FOR INCLUDING THE BIHAR ACT IN THE SCHEDULE, SINCE THE PARLIAMENT WAS ENACTING THE ACT ONLY TILL 4.4.1991, BUT SINCE SEVERAL STATE LAWS WERE BEING RE-ENACTED AND 4.4.91 WAS THE LAST DATE OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN ORISSA CEMENT, IT WAS THOUGHT FIT TO HAVE THE LEGISLATION EFFECTIVE TILL 4.4.91 BUT FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE, SO THAT THE STATE WOULD NOT BE LIABLE TO REFUND ANY CESS WHICH IT MIGHT HAVE COLLECTED EVEN SUBSEQUENT TO THE RELEVANT STATE LAWS HAVING BEEN DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL. WE FIND SUFFICIENT FORCE ALSO IN THE CONTENTION OF MR. K.K. VENUGOPAL THAT THE LAW NEVER EXISTED AFTER 4.4.1991 AND CONSEQUENTLY, THERE C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SSION THAT THIS COURT IN KANNADASAN'S CASE DREW WRONG ANALOGY FROM GANGOPADHYAY'S CASE AND ERRONEOUSLY HELD THAT PROVISIONS THEREIN WERE IDENTICAL TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE VALIDATION ACT OF 1992. SECTION 2(1) OF THE VALIDATION ACT HAVING USED THE EXPRESSION UPTO 4.4.91 , IT UNEQUIVOCALLY INDICATES THAT WHAT IS VALIDATED IS THE PROCESS OF LEVY AND COLLECTION MADE UPTO THAT DATE AND NO FURTHER. THIS BEING THE POSITION AND THE VALIDATION ACT NOT HAVING PROVIDED ANY PROVISION, PERMITTING LEVY OR COLLECTION AFTER 4.4.91, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ACT NEVER CONFERRED A RIGHT OF LEVY OR COLLECTION AFTER 4.4.91. THE JUDGMENT OF PATNA HIGH COURT, THEREFORE, MUST BE HELD TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN KANNADASAN'S CASE MUST BE HELD TO HAVE BEEN WRONGLY DECIDED. IN KANNADASAN'S CASE, THIS COURT WHILE INTERPRETING THE VALIDATION ACT, HELD THAT THE ACT AUTHORISES LEVY AND COLLECTION EVEN AFTER 4.4.91, AS OTHERWISE, IT WILL BE HELD TO BE DISCRIMINATORY AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 INASMUCH AS IF TWO PERSONS WOULD BE EQUALLY LIABLE TO PAY, THE PERSON WHO HAS PAID THE TAX WOULD BE AT THE DISADVANTAGE, THAN THE PERSON, WHO DID NOT PAY AND CHAL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NGED THE LEVY AND THE HIGH COURT HAD GRANTED STAY OF THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF CESS. EVEN AFTER THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT, WHILE THE APPEAL WAS PENDING IN THIS COURT, THE STAY ORDER WAS OPERATING AND THE ASSESSEE NEVER PASSED ON THE CESS COMPONENT TO THE CONSUMER OR END USER, AND ALSO COULD NOT HAVE PASSED ON THE SAME, AS THE COMMODITY WAS A CONTROLLED COMMODITY. IF AFTER THIS LENGTH OF TIME, THE VALIDATION ACT IS INTERPRETED TO MEAN A RIGHT BEING CONFERRED UPON THE STATE TO IMPOSE THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF THE SAME FROM 1964, IT WOULD WORK OUT GROSS INJUSTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AND EVEN WOULD RUN CONTRARY TO THE VERY JUDGMENT OF THE COURT INTER-PARTIES. THOUGH THIS CONTENTION MAY NOT BE A CLINCHING ISSUE IN INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF THE VALIDATION ACT, BUT IT CANNOT BE TOTALLY LOST SIGHT OF, AND IF ANY OTHER INTERPRETATION IS PERMISSIBLE, THEN THE SAME MUST BE ADHERED TO, PARTICULARLY, IN RELATION TO A TAXING STATUTE. WE DO FIND CONSIDERABLE FORCE IN THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION, AS IN OUR VIEW, THE INTERPRETATION, WE HAVE ALREADY GIVEN TO THE VALIDATION ACT WAS THE REAL INTENTION OF THE PARLIAMENT AND IT NEVER INTENDED TO CONFER A RIGHT OF COLLECTION OF CESS. IN AGREEMENT WI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
