- (1.) Delay condoned.
(2.) Leave granted in all the SLPs.
(3.) This batch of cases relate to the Cess and other Taxes on Minerals (Validation) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The question for consideration is, by the aforesaid Act, what in fact has been validated, is it only the taxes on minerals already realised under the invalid law or the right to levy tax and realize the same, which became due up to 4th of April, 1991 Several cases arising from different States have been tagged on to the main matter arising out of the judgment of the Patna High Court, were listed together, but we think it appropriate to decide the Bihar matter, so that the law laid down therein would be followed in other cases. Incidentally, the earlier judgment of this Court arising out of the said Validation Act in relation to the levy of tax on minerals in the State of Tamil Nadu in the case of P. Kannadasan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996) 5 SCC 670, is required to be reconsidered and it is for that purpose, these cases have been referred to a three Judge Bench. In the case arising out of the judgment in Patna High Court in SLP (Civil) Nos. 13102-13107 of 1996, the State through the District Mining Officer is the petitioner and by the impugned judgment, the High Court though has upheld the validity of the Validation Act, but has held that the said Validation Act does not authorise the recovery of any tax or cess after 4-4-1991, even if the liability was incurred under the Validated laws before 4-4-1991 and consequently, the demand raised by the State were quashed and the State was restrained from taking any steps to realize such demand. Be it be stated that a batch of writ petitions were filed by several assessees, assailing the legality of the demands raised by the Mining authorities for payment of cess in respect of such dues, which would be leviable till 4th of April, 1991. In the batch of cases relating to State of Madhya Pradesh, after the judgment of this Court in Kannadasan's case, the State of Madhya Pradesh issued notice to several assessees, raising the demand and such demand was assailed by filing writ petitions in the High Court. Applications had been filed in this Court for getting those writ petitions transferred, but no order of transfer has been passed by this Court and as such the writ petitions are still pending before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and we, therefore do not propose to deal with those matters, since the High Court can well dispose of the same, on the basis of our judgment in the Bihar Case. Civil Appeal No. 9917 of 1996, however is directed against the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 10-5-1995. Before the High Court, the validity of the Ordinance No. 7 of 1992 as well as Cess Validation Act 16 of 1992 had been assailed. The High Court, by the impugned judgment upheld the validity of the aforesaid Validation Act. We are in respectful agreement with the said conclusion and hold the Validation Act to be constitutionally valid. Hence no interference is called for in the civil Appeal. But the dispute, whether fresh notice could be issued for collection and levy of dues in respect of liability accrued till 4-4-91 is the subject matter in pending writ petitions in the High Court. In the cases arising out of the judgment in Karnataka High Court, the High Court has followed the judgment of this Court in Kannadasan and thus upheld the right of the State to levy demand and collect, which was collectable up to 4-4-1991 and the assessees are challenging the said judgment in this Court. Several Writ Petitions were filed under Art. 32, challenging the constitutional validity of the Validation Act as well as for quashing the demand notices dated 1-8-98 and 2-9-98, issued by the Department of Mines and Zoology in the State of Karnataka. In the cases arising out of judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court, the High Court followed the judgment of this Court in Kannadasan and upheld the Constitutional validity of the Validation Act as well as the right of the State to make the demand up to 4-4-1991 and this judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is being assailed by the assessees in different special leave petitions. In Kannadasan's case, which arises out of the judgment of Madras High Court, after the judgment of this Court, review petitions were filed by the assessees and this Court had merely directed those review petitions to be tagged on to the special leave petitions filed against the judgment of Patna High Court, but in those petitions, no formal notice had been issued to the State of Tamil Nadu and necessarily therefore, those review petitions have to be delinked and only after disposal of the special leave petitions filed, arising out of the judgment of Patna High Court, the review petitions can be listed for observance of formalities and disposal.;