Coal cess beyond State competence: levy treated as a tax on mineral production, and writ jurisdiction remained available.

A State cess measured by coal despatches, coal value, or coal-bearing land was treated in substance as a levy on coal production, not a direct tax on land. On that basis, the impost was held beyond State legislative competence because the field was occupied by Parliamentary legislation, and the amended provisions did not change the essential character of the levy. The tribunal ouster under Article 323B and the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act could not validly bar Article 226 scrutiny where the validity of the taxing provisions themselves depended on legislative competence. The levies were therefore declared unconstitutional, ultra vires and void, and further enforcement was restrained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was excluded by Article 323B of the Constitution of India and Sections 6, 14 and 15 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 in relation to the impugned cess disputes. (ii) Whether the cess levies on coal under the Cess Act, 1880, the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973 and the West Bengal Rural Employment and Production Act, 1976, including their amended provisions, were beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature and therefore unconstitutional.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was excluded by Article 323B of the Constitution of India and Sections 6, 14 and 15 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 in relation to the impugned cess disputes.

Analysis: Article 323B permits tribunal adjudication only in respect of matters over which the appropriate Legislature is competent to legislate. The exclusion of court jurisdiction under clause (3) is therefore tied to a valid law made within that legislative competence. Where the State Legislature lacks competence over the subject matter, the tribunal scheme cannot validly operate to oust the High Court's jurisdiction. On the facts, the impugned levies arose from enactments whose validity was itself under challenge as beyond legislative competence, so the statutory ouster could not displace constitutional scrutiny under Article 226.

Conclusion: The ouster objection failed, and the High Court retained jurisdiction to examine the writ disputes.

Issue (ii): Whether the cess levies on coal under the Cess Act, 1880, the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973 and the West Bengal Rural Employment and Production Act, 1976, including their amended provisions, were beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature and therefore unconstitutional.

Analysis: The impugned levies, though framed in terms of land or immovable property, were in substance measured by coal despatches, coal value, or coal-bearing land and thus operated as levies directly on coal production. Applying the principles in the controlling Supreme Court authorities on legislative competence, the real character of the impost was not a permissible tax on land but a tax on minerals/coal, a field occupied by Parliamentary legislation. The amended provisions did not alter that essential character; they merely restructured the measure of levy while retaining the same core basis linked to coal production and value. The levy therefore remained pari materia with the invalid imposts considered by the Supreme Court.

Conclusion: The levies, including the amended provisions, were held unconstitutional, ultra vires and void.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded. The cess could not be levied or recovered further, and the authorities were restrained from enforcing the impugned provisions, while past collections up to the judgment date were not ordered to be refunded.

Ratio Decidendi: A State levy that is in substance a tax on mineral production or mineral value, rather than a direct tax on land, is beyond State legislative competence where the field is occupied by Parliamentary legislation; an Article 323B tribunal scheme cannot validly oust High Court jurisdiction beyond the Legislature's competence.

---