STATE OF AP. AND ORS.versusIND. NATALI GRANITE LTD.

A                            STATE OF AP. AND ORS.
                                           v.
                           IND. NATALI GRANITE LTD.

                                   AUGUST 9, 1996

B                [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATfANAIK, JJ.]

            District Boards Act, 1955 : Section 2.

            Mining Lease-Levy of cess-Writ challenging the competence of the
C Govemment to levy cess allowed by High Cowt-Govemment amending the
  District Boards Act empowering the State to levy land Revenue or royal-
  ty/seigiorage fee-High Cowt holding the amendment was ultra vires the power
  of State Legislature-Legislature again amending the Act empowering the levy
  and collection of cess 011 the same grounds-Another wiit filed by respondent
  allowed by High Court-Appeal preferred by State-Held amendment validat-
D ing the collection of cess payable is valid.
            Legislature-Power to ame11d law removi11g the invalidity poillted out in
    tile judgment.

            India Cement Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1990] 1 SCC 12, referred
E
    to.

          P. Ka11nadasan Etc. Etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Etc. Etc.,
    [19961 sec 670.

p           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11345 of
    1996.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 21.3.90 of the Andhra Pradesh
    High Court in W.P. No. 3766 of 1990.

G           T. Anil Kumar for the Appellants.

            The following Order of the Court was delivered :

            Leave granted.

H           Delay condoned.
                                           544
                  STATEv. lND.NATALIGRANITELTD.                           545

       Though the respondent has been served, none appears for the               A
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 Govern-
ment amended the District Boards Act, 1955 by Amendment Act 8 of 1989
empowering the State to levy land revenue or royalty/seigiorage fee. The
                                                                                 B
respondent again filed Writ Petition No. 1 of 1987 questioning the legisla-
tive competence following the judgment of this Court in I11dia Ceme11t Ltd.
v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1990] 1 SCC 12. By judgment and order dated
December 21, 1989, the High Court held that the dmendment 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               c
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. Ka111zadasa11   D
Etc. Etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu a11d Ors. Etc. Etc., [1996] SCC 670 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 in-
validated 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     E
basis of the judgment, as pointed out by the Court, and enact the law
consistent with the constitutional scheme. The contention that the Parlia-
ment must first create the levy and then give it retrospective effect was also
negatived holding that the Parliament is not bound to adopt identical
language every time it enacts a validation Act. It is open to it to employ       F
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      G
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          H
    546                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A 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 on minerals
    extraction was raised and royalties is invalid unless a fresh enactant under
B   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 amend-
    ments 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.
c T.NA.                                                        Appeal allowed.




                                                                                   >•