LexJANAPADA SABHA, CHHINDWARA ETC. versus THE CENTRAL PROVINCES SYNDICATE LTD. AND ANR. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E 745 JANAPADA SABHA, CHHINDWARA ETC. v. THE CENTRAL PROVINCES SYNDICATE LTD. AND ANR. ETC. February 23, 1970 [J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE, A. N. GROVER, A. N. RAY AND I. D. DUA, JJ.J Retrospectil'ity-Madhya Pradesh Kaya/a Upkar (Manyatakaran) Adhi- nayam (18 of 1964), ss. 2(fl)(b) and 3(1)-Act purporting to validate levy of cess notwithstanding the judgment of a coiut to the contrary, but. nature and text of aniendment not specified-Effect of Validating A.ct. In 1935, the Independent Mining Local Board, Chhindwara, constituted under C.P. Local Self Government Act, 1920, resolved to levy a cess on coal e<tracted within the area at 3 pies per ton. The sanction of the Local Government, as required bys. 51(2) of the Act, was obtained for the levy. In 1943, the levy was enhanced to 4 pies, in 1946 to 7 pies and in 1947 to 9 pies. The validity of the enhanced levy was challenged and this Court, in appeal, held that the increased levy would also require the previous sanc- tion of the Local Government and such sanction not having been obtained, the levy at a rate higher than 3 pies was illegal. The State Legislature thereafter enacted the Madhya Pradesh Koyala Upkar (Manyatakaran) Adhinayam, 1964. Section 2(a) of the Act dOfines 'Board' to mean the Independent Mining Local Board, Chhindwara and its successor body the Janapada Sabha, Chhindwara (appellant) constituted under the C.P. and Berar Local Government Act, 1948', ands. 2(b) defines 'ccss' to mean 'a cess imposed by the Independent Mining Local Board, Chhindwara or its successor'. Section 3 ( !) provides that 'notwithstanding a judgment of any court, cesses imposed, assessed or co1lected by the Board in pursuance of the notificatjbns notices specified in the Schedule shall, for all purposes, be de~ed to be, and to have always been validly imposed, aSllessed or collected as if the enactment under which they were issued stood amended nt material times so as to empoWer· _the Board to issue the said notifications. F , In the Schedule were specified the three notifications enhancing the rate df cess. G On the question whether the enhanced levy was validated by the 1964 Acr. HELD : The Act did not give legal effect to the imposition of cess at the enhanced rates. By a diction s. 3(1) of the 1964-Act deems the Act of 1920 and the rules framed thereunder to have been amended. But the text or even the nature of the amendments is not disclosed. Section 51 (2) of the 1920- Act could not be deemed to have been repealed by the 1964 Act, because, the latter. Act, in terms is limited in its application to the Independent Min- ing Local Board, Chhindwara, and its successor body and only in respect - H of the three notifications specified in the Schedule. An Act so limited in its app1ication to one·Local Board and to specified notifications cann.ot re~ peal the sub-section which applies to all Boards. Nor is t~ere anythmg to 1ndicate that notifications issued by the appellant-Board without the sanc- L\OSup Cl (NP)/70-3 746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1970] 3 S.C.R. tion of the St~te Government must be deemed to have been issued validly. ~uch an intendment cannot be implied, without express language, in a tax- ing statute, It was open to the Legislature within certain lin1its to amend the provisions o'f an Act retrospectively and to declare what the law shall be deemed to have been. But the Legislature, in the present cast\ attempted to_ overrule or set aside a decision of the court. It is not open to the Legis- lature to -say that a judgment of a court porperly constituted and rendered in cxercis~ ot its powers in a matter brought before it shall be deemed to be ineffective either as a precedent or between the panics. l750 E-F: 751 A-OJ Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ajax Products Lui., 55 1:r.R. 741 (S.C.) and Commissioner of Income-tax v. B. M. Khanvar, [1967] 2 S.C.R. 650, followed. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal; Nos. 125 to 134 of 1967. · App.eals from the judgment and order dated May 3. 1966 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petitions Nos. 552 of 1964 etc. B. Sen, S. K. Seth and I. N. Shroff, for the appellant fin C.As. Nos. 125 to 133 of 1967). I. N. Shroff, for the appellant and respondent no. 6 (in C.A.No. 134 of 1967). · N. D. Karkhanis and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for respondent no. 1. (in C.As. Nos. 125 to 133 of 1967). Sachin Choudhary, R. K. P. Shankardass, A. K. Verma a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.