- (1.) IN the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the order, as contained in Memo No.2379/M dated 31.10.2006 issued by the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa whereby and whereunder it has been held that the whole case of M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. is based upon the demand note Memo No.572 dated 21.04.1992 which clearly mentions the period till 04.04.1991 only; as such no refund of cess amount aggregating to Rs.60,00,000/ -is admissible in the light of the Cess and Other Taxes on Minerals (Validation) Act, 1992 (16 of 1992) and Honble High Court order dated 27.02.2006 as this amount does not pertain to the period of 5th April, 1991 onwards and also as per Honble High Court Division Bench order dated 23.12.2003 in CWJC No.2943 of 1996(R )/ 2945 of 1996 (R ) /4714 of 1996 (R ). The petitioner further prays for a writ, order or direction commanding upon the respondents to show cause as to why and under what authority the sum of Rs.1.20 crore paid by the petitioner towards Cess and royalty after 04.04.1991 has not yet been refunded. The petitioner further prays for a writ, order or direction from this Honble Court commanding upon the concerned respondents to immediately and forthwith pay to the petitioner the aforesaid sum of Rs.1.20 crore along with 18% interest thereon.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are stated as under: - The State of Bihar (as it then was) was charging cess and royalty in purported exercise of authority under Bengal Cess Act, 1880 which was extended and made applicable to the State of Bihar. Several ordinances and notifications were issued from time to time enhancing the rate of cess. There were similar provisions applicable in the State of Tamil Nadu for realizing the cess. The Constitutional validity of the same was challenged and the matter finally was heard before the Honble Supreme Court and a Constitution Bench in India Cement Limited and Others Vrs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others  reported in (1990) 1 SCC page 12 held that royalty is a tax and as such a cess on royalty being a tax on royalty was beyond the legislative competence of the state legislature to levy the same because Section 9 of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act is a central Act which covered the field. The judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in India Cement Case(supra) was rendered on 25th October, 1989. Thereafter another judgment by three Honble Judges was passed in Orissa Cement case reported in (1991) (Suppl.) 1 SCC page 430 and the judgment was delivered on 4.4.1991. Following the aforesaid decisions of the Honble Supreme Court several writ petitions and representations were filed for refund before several High Courts and finally an ordinance was promulgated by the President of India on 5th February, 1992 known as 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 provision of validation up to 4th April, 1991. In pursuance of the said ordinance demands were made from different parties including TISCO and others. 1996 (1) PLJR 404 while upholding the validation Act, 1992 held that the taxes collected before 4th April, 1991 are not required to be refunded. The aforesaid decision along with other decisions including a Division Bench of the Honble Supreme Court passed in (1996) 5 SCC page 670 (P. Kannadasan Vrs. State of Tamil Nadu) case came up for consideration before a Bench of three Honble Judges in District Mining Officer Vrs. Tata Iron Steel Company reported in (2001) 7 SCC 358 wherein the Honble Supreme Court held that the said Act validated the collection of levies already made up to 4th April, 1991 but did not authorise raising of levy and collection of cess or taxes beyond that period. The judgment of the Patna High Court was upheld.
(3.) A writ petition was also preferred by the petitioner herein 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 th 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 and 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.;