Shivaraj V. Patil, J. - (1.) In all these cases the controversy raised relates to the claim of refund of the amount paid by the respondents as water cess under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 (for short 'the Act'). Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of these petitions are : The respondents are the owners of industrial units manufacturing sugar from sugarcane and liquor/alcohol from molasses, a by-product. On demand made by the State Government under the provisions of the Act they were required to pay water cess. They protested against the demand principally contending that sugar industry and distillery were not industries covered by Entry No. 15 of Schedule I of the Act and consequently they were neither liable to submit any return nor to make any payment of water cess; when their protests were not accepted and the demand persisted for payment of water cess the respondents paid the amount under protest. Some of them filed writ petitions Nos. 3558 of 1980, 494 of 1980 and 17646 of 1986. The writ petitions came to be dismissed. Thereafter, special leave petitions were filed before this Court, which were disposed by judgment in M/s. Saraswati Sugar Mills vs. Haryana State Board, (1992) 1 SCC 418, reversing the decision of the High Court and holding that the sugar manufacturing industries did not fall within Entry 15 of Schedule I of the Act.
(2.) After the said judgment was rendered by this Court representations were made to the Board and the Cess Officer/Assessing Authority of the Board for refund of the amount illegally and without the authority of law realized by them as water cess. Despite several representations, there was no response from the Board and its authorities. Hence the writ petitions were filed consequent upon law declared by this Court in Saraswati Sugar Mills case (supra) seeking a mandamus to the petitioners to refund the amount collected from them as cess with interest @ 18% per annum. In the writ petitions it was contended that the writ petitioners themselves have paid the amount as water cess under protest and they had not passed on the liability to the customers.
(3.) The petitioners contested the claim made by the respondents before the High Court. They filed the counter-affidavit in the High Court, in short taking the stand that the respondents were not entitled to refund to any amount from the Board for the reasons that after collection, the amount has been paid to the State Government, which in turn has paid the amount to the Government of India; referring to the representations of the respondents it was stated that a reference had been made to the State Government in the matter and their reply was awaited; after the judgment in M/s. Saraswati Sugar Mills case (supra) Entry 15 of Schedule I of the Act was amended with effect from 2-1-1992 covering sugar industries and distilleries and making them liable to pay water cess under the amended provisions of Entry 15 of Schedule I of the Act. In these petitions, we are not concerned with the said amended Entry and the levy and collection of cess from 2-1-1992. The High Court, after considering the rival submissions and relying few judgments of this Court, disposed of the writ petitions directing the petitioners to refund the sum realised from the respondents as water cess after verification of the amount stated to have been paid by them within the given time. Hence the petitioners have filed these special leave petitions.;