LexSHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., SANGLI, MAHARASHTRA STATE ETC. versus THE COLLECTOR OF SANGLI AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
\ A B G 982 SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., SANGLI, MAHARASHTRA STATE ETC. v. THE COLLECTOR OF SANGLI AND OTHERS October 22, 1979 • T [Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, CJ., V. R. KRISHNA IYER. N. L. UNTWALIA, P. N. SHINGHAL AND A. D. KOSHAL, J.J.j Bo1nbay Sugarcane Cess Act, 1948, Ss, 4, 7 ancf 8 & Sugarcan1' l'css (Valida- tion) Act 1961, Ss. 2(li) and 3(1)(c)--State Act levying .<;ugarcune cess found to be ultra-vires--Central Act enacted adopting provisions of St11tc· Act and vali- dating assessm-ents nlade thereunder--Central Act whether ralidates or re·t'nacts the State. Act-Cess whether recoverable fronz owner of factory. The Bombay Surgacane Cess Act, 1948 empowers the State Government to specify a·nY factory the area comprised in which shall be a local area for the purposes of the Act and to levy cess on the entry of sugarcane into a local area for consun1ption or use therein. A duty is cast on every 'occupier' to D furnish to the prescribed authority a return stating· the total quantity in tons of sugarcane \Vbich enters the local area comprised in his factory for consumption 01 use therein ~uring the preceding month. In Diamond Sugar Mills Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh & another [1961] 3 S.C.R. 242 this Court struck.down the U.P. Sugarcane Cess Act, 1956, which contained provisions similar to those of the Bombay Act on the ground E that the proper meaning to be attached to the \Vords 'local area' under Entry 52 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution was an area adminis- te:n~d by a local body such as municipality, district board, or the like and that the. premises of a factory were not a 'local area' within the meaning of the said Entry. Since prior to this decision, several State Legislatures had passed similar enactments, all of which became unconstitutional by reason of that decision, Parlian1ent passed the Sugarcane Cess (Valida.tion) Act, 1961, section F 3 sub-section (1), Clause (c) whereof provides that any cess imposed or assessed under any State Act before the commencement of the Central Act, but not collected before SU.ch enactment may 6e recovered (after assessment of the cess where necessary). The appellant's petitions impugning the levy and demand of cess imposed under the Bombay Act supplemented by the Central Act were dismissed by the G Bombay High Court. In appeals to this Court it was contended ( 1) that the Central Act nierely authorised the collection of amounts which had already been imposed, assessed or coUected and that no assessment, recovery or collection could be made under section 3 of the Central Act read with the relevant provisions of the State Act after the enforcen1ent of the Central Act; a.Ild (2) that Parliament could not H pass a law retrospectively validating invalid assessments by converting their character from assessments under the State Acts to those under its on statute operating retrospectively. ' . ·- . ' SAKHAR KARKHANA v. COLLECTOR (Koshal, J.) \ 983 Dismissing the appeals, A JlELD : l(i) In two earlier decisions this Court has repelled an idenliCal a,rgument on the ground that what Section 3 of the Central Act provides is that by its order and force, the respective cesses \vould be· deemed to have been recovered, because the provisions in relation to the recovery of this cess have been incorpc.rated in that Act iLo;cJf so that the command under which the cesses would be deemed to have been recovered \vould be the con1n1and of B Parliament because all the relevant sections, notifications, qrder and iulcs had been adopted by the Parliarnent'1ry statute itself. It is, therefore, plain that Section 3 of the Central Act did not n1erely validate ·what the State authorities had ·already done under the Bon1bay Act but rewenacted the provision of the Homba-y Act by virtue of the authority vested in, Parlian1ent under Entry 97 in IJ~t I of the. Seyenth Schedule to the Constitution so that the Bon1bay Act brcaine fully alive and operative as an enactment of Par!iarnent all soon as the· C'. Central Act wa" pro1nufgated and the authorities named in tho Act \Vere investe.d with full powers to a1Ssess and recover the cess not under the Bombay Act but under the. Central 1\ct into \Vhich the provisions of the Bombay Act and the rules franl.ed as well as the notifications issued thereunder became incorporated. [988 D. 989 B-C, 990 B-Cj Jaora Sugar A/ills 1.P) I.td. v. St
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.