Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH, K.S. HEGDE, A.N. GROVER, A.N. RAY AND I.D. DUA, JJ.
Janapada Sabha, Chhindwara etc., Appellants
Versus
The Central Provinces Syndicate Ltd. and another etc. Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos 125 to 134 oil 1967, D/- 23-2-1970.
Advocates appeared
Mr. B Sen, Senior Advocate (M/s S. K. Seth and I N. Shroff Advocate with him), for Appellant; (in Civil Appeals Nos. 125 to 133 of 1967); Mr. 1. N. Shroff, Advocate, for Appellant and Respondent No. 6 (In Civil Appeal No. 134 of 1967): Mr. N. D. Karkhanis, Senior Advocate, (Mr. A G. Ratnaparkhi, Advocate with him), for Respondent No. 1- (In Civil Appeals Nos. 125 to 133 of 1967); Mr. Sachin Choudhary, Senior Advocate, (Mr. K. P. Shanker Das and Mrs. A. K. Verma, Advocates and Mr. O. C. Mathur, Advocate of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., with him), for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. (In Civil Appeal No. 134 of 1967).
In a taxing law, if the Act does not by the plain language used therein carry out the object for which it is enacted, the Court will not be justified in supplying deficiencies in the Act. In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said.
There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used. 12 TC 358, 27 TC 205 HL, 55 ITR 741 & (1967) 2 SCR 650 relied on. [Para 7]
(2) Koyala Upkar (Manyatakaran) Adhiniyam, 1964 (MP) - S. 3 - Local Self Government Act, 1920 (C.P. & Berar) - S. 51 - nature and effect of the Manyatakaran Adhiniyam -section 51 of the Local Self Government Act invalid notifications issued under section 51 not validated.
Act 18 of 1964 is a piece of clumsy drafting. By a fiction it deems the Act of 1920 and the rules framed thereunder to have been amended without disclosing the text or even the nature of the amendments. The Act in terms is limited in its application to the Independent Mining Local Board, Chhindwara, and its successor body, Janapada Sabha, Chhindwara, constituted under Act 38 of 1948, and only in respect of the three notifications specified in the Schedule. Obviously, the Act limited to one Local Board in its application and to certain notifications cannot operate to repeal the clause insofar as it applied to other Boards. 1966 JLJ 884 confirmed [Paras 8 & 9]
(3) Constitution of India - Arts. 246 & 245 - power of the Legislature to enact laws - may enact retrospective legislation - cannot overrule any judgment of a properly constituted Court - Koyala Upkar (Manyatakaran) Adhlniyam, 1964 (MP) - S. 3.
On the words used in the Koyala Upkar (Manyatakaran) Adhiniyam, it is plain that the Legislature attempted to overrule or set aside the decision of the Supreme Court. That is not open to the Legislature to do under our constitutional scheme. It is open to the Legislature within certain limits to amend the provisions of an Act retrospectively and to declare what the law shall be deemed to have been, but it is not open to the Legislature to say that a judgment of a Court properly constituted and rendered in exercise of its powers in a matter brought before it shall be deemed to be ineffective and the interpretation of the law shall be otherwise than as declared by the Court. [Para 10]
(4) Constitution of India - Art. 141 - binding nature of the judgments of the Supreme Court - Legislature cannot render the judgment ineffective.
A judgment of the Supreme Court is binding between the parties and also by virtue of Article 141, binding on all Courts in the territory of India. The Legislature could not say that declaration of law was either erroneous invalid or ineffective either as a precedent or between the parties. [Para 11]
Judgment
SHAH, J.:- These appeals are filed by the Janapada Sabha, Chhindwara-hereinafter called the Sabha - against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh declaring that the Madhya Pradesh Koyala Upkar (Manyatakaran) Adhiniyam [Madhya Pradesh Coal Cess (Validation) Act ] 18 of l964 does not "give legal effect to the imposition of cess at the rate of 4 pies, 7 pies and 9 pies per ton under the notifications" issued by the Independent Mining Local Board on December 22, 1943, July 29, 1946 and July 19, 1947 respectively, "nor to anything done in pursuance of those notifications".
2. The Independent Mining Local Board, Chhindwara, a Board constituted under the Central Provinces Local Self-Government Act 4 of 1920, resolved on March 12, 1935 to levy a cess under Sec. 51 of the Act at the rate of 3 pies per ton on coal extracted within the area. Sanction of the local Government was obtained to that levy. On December 22, 1943, the rate was enhanced to 4 Pies per ton: it was enhanced on July 29, 1946 to 7 pies per ton and on July 19, 1947 the cess was enhanced to 9 pies per ton. The Central Provinces Local Self-Government Act 4 of 1920 was repealed with effect from June 11, 1948 by the C. P. and Berar Local Government Act 38 of 1948. By Sec. 192 of Act 38 of 1948 it was enacted, inter alia, that all rules, bye-laws and orders made, notifications and notices issued, taxes imposed or assessed, cesses, fees tolls or rates levied under Act 4 of 1920 and in force immediately before the commencement of Act 38 of 1948 shall continue to be in force and shall be deemed to have been respectively made, issued, granted, imposed or assessed, levied and taken under Act 38 of 1948, and all rates, taxes and cesses due to the Independent Local Board shall be deemed to be due to the Sabha to whose areas they pertain.
3. The levy of coal cess by the Sabha was challenged by the Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. and others on diverse grounds in petitions filed in this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution. This Court rejected the petitions holding that Act 4 of 1920 had received the assent of the Governor-General and its validity was not liable to be challenged and that "on a proper interpretation of Section 51 of the Act the levy of coal cess was not excluded from the purview of the local authority". It was also held that the levy of the cess was valid even after the coming into force of the Government of India Act, 1935, and the Constitution of India, in view of Sec. 143 of the Government of India Act, 1935 and Art. 277 of the Constitution. But the Court declined to allow the petitioners to urge that the increase in the rate of tax by resolutions in the years 1943, l946 and 1947 wee invalid: Amalgamated Coal Fields 59 Ltd. v. Janapada Sabha, Chindwara, (1962) 1 SCR 1
4. Validity of the enhanced levy was then challenged in Petitions filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh by the Amalgamated Coal Fields Ltd. and Others. In appeals against the order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, this Court held that since neither the Act nor the Rules prescribed a ceiling on the levy, the expression "first imposition" occurring, in Sec. 51 (2) would include every increase of the levy after its initial imposition and the increased levy would require the previous sanction of the Local Government and such sanction not being there, the levy at the rate of 9 pies per ton was illegal. The Court accordingly allowed the appeals and ordered that the appropriate directions be issued restraining the Janapada Sabha from recovering the tax at a rate higher than 3 pies per ton and also restraining the Sabha from recovering any additional tax in respect of the years for which tax had already been assessed against the petitioners Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. v. The Janapada Sabha, Chhindwara, 1963 Supp (1) SCR 172 .
5. To rectify the defect pointed out by this Court in the imposition of the cess, the Legislature of Madhya Pradesh enacted the Madhya Pradesh Koyala Upkar (Ma
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
