http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: STATE OF A.P. & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: IND. NATALI GRANITE LTD.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/08/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (8)     2        1996 SCALE  (6)317

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      Delay condoned.      Though the respondent has been served, none appears for the  respondent.   The  respondent   filed  writ:   petition questioning the competence of the Government to levy cess on mining lease.  Learned single  Judge by  his judgment  dated October 1,  1986 allowed  the writ  petition. The Government amended the  District Boards Act, 1955 by Amendment Act 8 of 1989 empowering  the State  to levy land revenue or royalty/ seigiorage fee.  The respondent  again filed  writ  petition No.1  of   1987  questioning   the  legislative   competence following the  judgment of  this Court  in India Cement Ltd. vs. State  of Tamil  Nadu [(1990) 1 SCC 12]. By judgment and order dated  December 21, 1989, the High Court held that the amendment  was   ultra  vires   the  power   of  the   State Legislature.  Again   the  legislature   amended   the   Act empowering the  levy and  collection of the cess on the same grounds,  while   appeal  was   filed  in  this  Court.  The respondent filed  another writ petition which was allowed by the High  Court on  December 21,  1990. Thus, this appeal by special leave.      The controversy is no longer res integra. This Court in P.Kannadasan  etc.etc.  vs.  State  of  Tamil  Nadu  &  Ors. etc.etc. [C.A.  No. 9847/96 & batch] decided on July 6, 1996 has considered  elaborately the  entire controversy and held that the  legislature is competent to amend the law removing the invalidity  pointed out in the judgment. Therefore, when an Act  made by  the State Legislature is invalidated by the Court on  the ground  that the legislature was not competent to enact  it, the  legislature is  competent to  remove  the lacuna and  alter the  basis of the judgment, as pointed out by  the  Court,  and  enact  the  law  consistent  with  the constitutional scheme.  The contention  that the  Parliament must first  create the  levy and  then give it retrospective effect was also negatived holding that the Parliament is not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

bound to  adopt identical  language every  time it  enacts a validation Act.  It is open to it to employ such language as it chooses.  All that  the Court  should see  is whether the language employed  achieves the purpose which the Parliament sets out  to achieve.  The language employed in Section 2 of the validation  Act does  achieve the  purpose. Dealing with the further  contention that the validation was designed to, and provides  only to  validate the taxes and cesses already covered under the relevant provisions of the enactment which was declared  invalid and  that power  cannot be utilised to empower or  authorise the  Parliament to  recover taxes  and cesses payable  under the invalid provisions, this Court had held that  unless the  levy is validated, recoveries already made cannot  be validated.  It was  for this reason that the enactment came  to be  made. A  Further contention  that the Parliament is  devoid of  the power  to prescribe  different rates of  tax in different States as it violates Article 14. That  contention   was  also   elaborately  considered   and negatived by  this Court.  Yet another  contention that  the Parliament having denuded the power of the State Legislature to levy tax mineral extraction was raised and royalties is invalid unless a fresh enactant under Entry 54 of the List I of the  Seventh Schedule  is made.  That contention also was rejected. It  is, thus, clear that this Court has upheld the amendments validating  the collections  of the  cess payable under the State Acts.      The appeal  is accordingly  allowed. The  judgments and orders of  the High  Court stand  set aside. No costs, since the respondent is not appearing.