STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS versus M/S. BASANT AGROTECH (INDIA) LTD.

Citation: [2013] 17 S.C.R. 395 · Decided: 06-12-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 17 S.C.R. 395 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS 
v. 
MIS. BASANT AGROTECH (INDIA) LTD. 
(Civil Appeal No.10867 of 2013) 
DECEMBER 6, 2013 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Administrative Law - Subordinate/delegated legislation 
-
Whether can be given retrospective effect -
Held: 
A 
B 
Legislature can make a law retrospectively or prospectively C 
subject to justifiability and acceptability within the 
constitutional parameters - A subordinate legislation can be 
given retrospective effect if a power in its behalf is contained 
in the principal Act - In the present case, Notification could 
not have been given retrospective operation, because such 
D 
an interpretation does not flow from the $tatute i.e. s. 16 of 
Rajasthan Finance Act, 2008 - The words "from time to time" 
used in s. 16 have a· futuristic tenor - It does not engulf the 
spectrum .of retrospectivity or retroactivity in its ambit and 
sweep - therefore, the Notification so far as it covered the 
E 
period prior to the date of its publication is transgression of 
the statutory postulate - Rajasthan Finance Act, 2008- s. 16. 
Interpretation of Statutes: 
Construction of a statutory provision - If any implied 
F 
power is construed from the language used in the statute, there 
has to be a holistic reading of the statute, but not a fragmented 
one. 
Interpretation of Fiscal legislation/taxing statutes -
G 
Fundamental principles for - Discussed. 
Words and Phrases - Expression 'From time to time' -
Connotation of - Discussed. 
395 
H 
396 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 17 S.C.R. 
A 
The respondents - the mining lease-holders for 
extraction of major minerals, filed writ petitions before 
High Court challenging the Constitutional validity of 
Chapter VII of Rajasthan Finance Act, 2008, which 
provides for levy of cess on mineral rights. The lease-
s holders were required to pay environment and health 
cess imposed u/s. 16 of the Act. 
In addition Notification dated 23.1.2009 issued by 
State Government was also challenged, whereby the 
Notification dated 25.2.2002 was amended. It was 
C challenged on the ground that the Notification sought to 
levy environment and health •cess with retrospective 
effect i.e. w.e.f. 1.4.2008 and the Notification was illegal 
and bad in l~w to thE! extent it was given retrospective 
effect. 
D 
The High Court held that the levy by the State 
Government was within its legislative competence and 
hence not unconstitutional. However, the High Court held 
the Notification dated 23.1.2009 was ultra vires and the 
E same could no_t have retrospective effect. Hence the 
present appeals by the State. The scope of the present 
appeals was limited to the question whether the order of 
High Court declaring the Notification to the effect that it 
cannot have retrospective effect is valid or justified. 
F 
The appellant-State contended that wherever 
statutory power is conferred, there is no limitation with 
regard to exercise of that power and the same can be 
exercised from time to time; and that administrative 
power as well as quasi-legislative power can be exercised 
G any. number of times, in view of the principle embodied 
u/s. 21 of General Clauses Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
H 
HELD: 1.1. In construing fiscal statutes and in 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BASANT AGROTECH 
397 
(INDIA) LTD. 
determining the liability of a subject to tax, one must have 
A 
regard to the strict letter of the law and not merely to the 
spirit of the statute or the substance of the law. If the 
Revenue satisfies the Court that the case falls strictly 
within the provision of the law, the subject can be taxed. 
If, on the other hand, the case is not covered within the 
four corners of the provisions of the taxing statute, no tax 
can be imposed by inference or by analogy or by trying 
B 
to -probe into the intentions of the legislature and by 
considering what was the substance of the matter. The 
rule of construction of a charging section is that before c 
taxing any person, it must be shown that he falls within 
the ambit of the charging section by clear words used in 
the section. No one can be taxed by implication. A 
charging section has to be construed strictly. [Paras 14 
and 17] [409-C-E; 411-C] 
AS. Fernandez vs. The State of Kera/a AIR 1957 SC 
657: 1957 SCR 837; Bank of Chettinad vs. Income-tax 
Commr. AIR 1940 PC 183; Commissioner of Sa/ex-tax, IJ.P. 
D 
vs. Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. AIR 1961 SC 1047: 1961 SCR 189; 
Commissioner of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.