JUDGMENT :

N.M. JAMDAR, J.

1. The Petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of the Goa Rural Improvement and Welfare Cess Act, 2000 and the Goa Rural Improvement and Welfare Cess Rules, 2006. The Petitioner has also challenged the demand notices issued under the impugned enactments and the notification issued on 8 October 2010.

2. The Petitioner, a Company registered under the Companies Act 1956, carries on the business of production of mining of the iron ore and its extraction, processing, transport and export in the State of Goa.

3. The Goa State Legislative Assembly passed the Goa Rural Improvement and Welfare Cess Act, 2000, the Goa Cess Act, to which the Governor of Goa gave assent on 28 September 2000. The Act was published in the Official Gazette of Government of Goa on 16 October 2000.

4. The State of Goa, in the exercise of powers under Sections 4, 5 and 8 of the Goa Cess Act, framed the Goa Rural Improvement and Welfare Cess Rules, 2006, the Goa Cess Rules.

The Goa Cess Rules were notified on 23 January 2006 and published in the Official Gazette on 24 January 2006. A Corrigendum was published in the Official Gazette on 27 January 2006. In exercise of powers under Section 1(3) and 3(1) of the said Act, the State Government issued a Notification on 8 October 2010 and Rule 3(1) was substituted. Under the exercise of powers under Section 3(2) of the Goa Cess Act, the State Government revised the extent of the rate of cess on certain materials which were specified in Schedule I appended to the Goa Cess Act.

5. A notice dated 31 August 2010 was served on the Petitioner, calling upon the Petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 1088000/- as cess under the provisions the Goa Cess Act for the period from April 2010 to June 2010. The Petitioner, by this Petition, has challenged the action initiated by the State of Goa under the Goa Cess Act and the Rules. The Petitioner has prayed for a declaration that the Goa Cess Act and the Goa Cess Rules framed there under are ultra vires the Constitution of India, illegal, null and void. The Petitioner has also sought a declaration that the notification dated 13 May 2008, issued by the State, be held as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.

6. Rule was issued in the Petition. During the pendency of the Petition, further demand notices were issued to the Petitioner; those by amendment are also challenged. The Petitioner deposited the cess under protest and without prejudice to the contentions raised in the Petition.

7. Rule was issued by this Court in several other writ petitions raising similar challenge, and this Writ Petition was directed to be heard along with the group. Levy of the cess under the Goa Cess Act and the Goa Cess Rules was made subject to the outcome of the Petitions. It was directed that if the Petitioners succeeded, then the State would have to refund the amounts without the Petitioners taking out separate proceedings for recovery of the cess paid. By Notification dated 6 April 2016, Schedule I to the Goa Cess Act was amended to make the cess "Nil" in respect of the royalty paid items.

8. When this Petition along with the group of Writ Petitions came up for hearing, the Counsel in other petitions requested that the two arguments raised in this Petition, that is the legislative competence of the State and retrospective application, are common in almost all matters and they requested to be heard in support when this Petition is heard. The Counsel requested that after the decision is rendered in this petition, the other petition be taken up for consideration on other individual grounds. Given this request by the Counsel, the other grounds of challenge than the two argued before us in this petition, are not be construed as foreclosed by this decision. The arguments on behalf of the Petitioner were led by Mr. D. J. Khambata, Senior Advo