ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF MINES & GEOLOGY versus M/S DECCAN CEMENTS LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 32 · Decided: 25-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 32 
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF MINES & GEOLOGY 
v. 
MIS DECCAN CEMENTS LTD. & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5481 of 2002) 
JANUARY 25, 2008 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.) 
Gess and Other Taxes on Minerals (Validation) Act, 1992: 
Minerals - Gess and other taxes on - Levy and collection 
of - Correctness of conclusions that "the levy was permissible 
but amounts which have not already been collected, cannot 
be collected" arrived at by Supreme Court in District Mining 
Officer's case*- Referred to larger Bench. 
*District Mining Officer and Ors. Vs. Tata Iron and Steel 
Co. and Anr. 2001 (7) SCC 358 - referred to. 
Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. and Anr. Vs. State of U. P 
and Anr. 2001 (5) sec 519 - cited. 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5481 
of 2002. 
From the final Judgment/Order dated 12.9.2001 of the High 
Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P. No. 
6494/1992. 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 5483, 5484, 5487of2002, SLP (C) Nos. 10887-
10888, 10889-10891, 10892-10894/2002 and 10895-10896/ 
2002. 
G 
Anoop G .. Chaudhary, M.N. Rao, Nagendra Rai, June 
Chaudhari, T.V. Ratnam, Manoj Saxena, Rajnish Kr. Singh, 
Devendra Kumar Singh, Rahul Shukla, Buddy A. Ranganadhan, 
A. Ramesh, AV. Rangam, S. Udaya Kr. Sagar, Bina Madhavan, 
MIS. Lawyer's Knit & Co., Ajay Sharma, B.V. Bairam Das, B. 
H 
32 
-+ 
\ 
.. 
.., 
\ 
...,,, 
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF MINES & GEOLOGY v. 
M/S DECCAN CEMENTS LTD. & ANR. [PASAYAT, J.] 
33 
Krishna Prasad, B. Partha Sarthy, Mohanprasad Meharia for A 
the appearing parties. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. During the hearing of these 
appeals reliance was placed by the respondents in C.A. 
B 
No.5481/2002 on a decision of this Court in District Mining 
Officer and Ors. v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. and Anr. (2001 (7) 
SCC 358). Appellant in the said appeal placed reliance on 
Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. and Anr. v. State of UP and 
Anr. (2001 (5) sec 519). 
c 
2. High Court in the order impugned relied on District 
Mining Officer's case (supra) to hold that though levy upto 
4.4.1991 was permissible, no collection of cess could be made. 
3. In District Mining Officer's case (supra) it was, inter-
0 
alia, observed as follows: 
" .... We do find considerable forc;e in the aforesaid 
submission, as in our view, the interpretation we have 
already given to the Validation Act was the real intention 
of Parliament and it never intended to confer a right of E 
collection of cess. In agreement with the conclusion arrived 
at by the Patna High Court, we hold the Validation Act to 
be valid, but such validated Acts do not authorize any 
fresh levy or collection in respect of liabilities accrued 
prior to 4.4.1991, though it prohibits refund of the collection F 
already made prior to that date." 
4. It is to be noted that in the said case the validity of the 
cess and other taxes under the Cess and Other Taxes on 
Minerals (Validation) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the 
'Validation Act') was under consideration. This Court held that G 
the Validation Act did not suffer from any invalidity. Having 
observed so, the aforesaid conclusions were arrived at 
regarding impermissibility for collection not already made. !n 
Somaiya Organics (lndia)'s case (supra) the conceptual · 
difference between "levy" and "collect" was noted in the following 
H 
34 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 
...+--
\.._ 
A words: 
J. 
"29. Reading the two paras 89 and 90 together it does 
appear that this Court regarded the declaration of the 
provisions being illegal prospectively as only meaning that 
B 
if the States had already collected the tax they would not 
be liable to pay back the same. It is the States which were 
protected as a result of the declaration for otherwise on 
the conclusion that the impugned Acts lacked legislative 
-r 
competence the result would have been that any tax 
collected would have become refundable as no State could 
c 
retain the same because levy would be without the authority 
of law and contrary to Article 265 of the Constitution. At the 
same time, it was clearly stipulated that the States were 
restrained from enforcing the levy any further. The words 
used in Article 265 are "levy" and "collect". In taxing statute 
D 
the words "levy" and "collect" are not synonymous terms 
(refer to CCE v. National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. (1972 
(2) sec 560) at p.572), while "levy" would mean the 
assessment or
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.