S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
1. This writ petition has been preferred by petitioner for a direction on the respondents to refund a sum of Rs. 1.2 crores paid by him towards cess on royalty after 4th April, 1991 with 18% interest thereon.
2. For better appreciation of the case, it is necessary to notice certain facts, as narrated hereunder.
The then State of Bihar was charging cess on royalty in purported exercise of authority under Bengal Cess Act, 1880, which was made applicable to the State of Bihar. Several Ordinance and Notifications were issued from time to time enhancing the rate of cess. Different writ petitions were preferred before the Patna High Court, which were dismissed. In the meantime, in pursuance of similar provisions, the State of Tamil Nadu was realizing cess. The matter moved up to the Supreme Court in 'India Cement Limited and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.', reported in : [1991]188ITR690(SC) . In the said case, the Supreme Court held that royalty is a tax, and as such a cess on royalty being a tax on royalty, was beyond the competence of State Legislature because Section 9 of the Central Act covers the field. The Judgment of the Supreme Court in India Cement Ltd. (supra) was rendered on 25th October, 1989. After the decision of the Supreme Court, similar orders were passed for refund by the High Court in different cases. An Ordinance was promulgated by President of India on 15th February, 1992, namely, 'Cess and other Taxes on Minerals (Validation), Ordinance, 1992'. By the said Ordinance of 1992, cess collected up to 1991 was validated by enforcing the provisions up to 4th April, 1991.
In pursuance of the said Ordinance, demands were made from different parties, including Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited. They preferred writ petitions challenging the demand and also raised the legislative competence in enacting cess and other taxes on Minerals (Validation) Act, 1992. A Bench of this Court in the case of 'Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited v. Union of India', reported in 1996 (1) PLJR 404, while upheld the validation Act, 1992, held that the taxes collected before 4th April, 1991 are not required to be refunded. However, no recovery of any tax can be made after 4th April, 1991.
The aforesaid decision fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in 'District Mining Officer v. Tata Iron And Steel Company' reported in : (2001)7SCC358 . The Supreme Court held that the said Act validated the collection of levies already made up to 4th April, 1991 but did not authorize making of levy and collection of cess or taxes beyond that period. The judgment of the Patna High Court was upheld. A writ petition was also preferred by petitioner being C.W.J.C. No. 68 of 1993(R) before the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court for similar relief. In the said case, an interim order was passed that no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioner for non-payment of cess on royalty. It appears from the letter dated 19th September, 1998 that in spite of interim order, on special request of the District Mining Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 1.2 crores without prejudice to its right and under protest. The writ petition was taken up on 5th February, 1996 and by judgment passed on the said date, the Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the said writ petition in terms with the decision in the case of Tata Iron & Steel Company (supra) and set aside the demand notice, whereby the petitioner was asked to pay the cess. Giving reference to the aforesaid order, the petitioner by his letter dated 19th September, 1998 requested to refund the amount of Rs. 1.2 crores with 18% interest but no action was taken. When similar matter moved before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1535 of 2005-State of Orissa v. Orissa Cement Limited, by order dated 4th March, 2005, the Supreme Court made the following observations:
We agree with the view taken by the High Court that points raised in these appeals are concluded by a judgment of this Court in : (2001)7SCC358 (District Mining Officer and Ors. v. Tata Iron & Steel Co.) and Anr. The judgment under appeal needs modification to the extent that instead of interest at the rate of 14% the respondents would be entitled to get interest at the rate of 12% provided the amount is refunded within six months from today. If the appellants fail to refund the amount within the period of six months the respondents would be entitled to get the interest at the rate of 14% as determined by the High Court.
The 2nd respondent, District Mining Officer, Singhbhum West, Chaibasa disputed the claim on the ground that the claim of refund of Rs. 1.2 crores relates to a period prior to 4th April, 1991 but it has not been made clear as to why the High Court in the case of petitioner (C.W.J.C. No. 68 of 1993(R) set aside the Demand Notice. The photo copy of demand notice dated 21st April, 1992 has been enclosed by the petitioner as Annexure-1. Though it is illegible but, prima facie, it appears that the authority demanded cess for the period up to 4th April, 1991. In absence of any specific record or evidence, no finding can be given as to whether any demand of cess on royalty was made after 4th April, 1991 and whether the petitioner has deposited any amount or cess for the period after 4th April, 1991 which he can claim refund. Therefore, no specific direction can be given in this case but liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the District Mining Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, if there is any evidence in its support of claim.
If the petitioner produces any evidence, such as Demand Notice for payment of cess on royalty for the period after 4th April, 1991 or any other evidence to suggest that any amount has been paid towards cess on royalty for the period from 5th April, 1991 onwards, the authority, in such case, will decide the claim by a reasoned order, within three months thereof.
This writ petition stands disposed of, with the aforesaid observations and directions.