Retrospective validation of mineral cess upheld, including recovery of unpaid amounts and rejection of Article 14 challenge.

Parliament may retrospectively validate and itself enact cesses and taxes on minerals earlier imposed by incompetent State legislation, provided the validating law cures the legislative defect within Parliament's competence. The statute was read as creating the levy for the relevant period by deeming the scheduled provisions to have been enacted by Parliament and to have remained in force up to 4 April 1991, so validation was not confined to amounts already collected; recovery of unpaid dues was also permissible. The differential State-wise rates did not offend Article 14 because they reflected the historical pattern of the earlier levies. The Act was not a temporary statute, and the recovery machinery continued to operate for liabilities arising under the validated levy.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether Parliament was competent to validate retrospectively the cesses and taxes on minerals earlier imposed by State enactments and thereby sustain the levy; (ii) whether the impugned enactment merely validated past collections or also authorised recovery of unpaid amounts not collected by 4 April 1991; (iii) whether the levy failed under Article 14 because different States had different rates; and (iv) whether the Act was a temporary statute that ceased to operate on 4 April 1991, leaving no machinery for recovery.

Issue (i): whether Parliament was competent to validate retrospectively the cesses and taxes on minerals earlier imposed by State enactments and thereby sustain the levy.

Analysis: The earlier decisions holding the State levies incompetent did not deprive Parliament of power to impose the same levies itself. A validating law is effective if the legislative incompetence identified by the Court is removed by Parliament acting within its own competence. The impugned enactment did not purport to annul judicial decisions by force of legislation; it enacted the levy itself by deeming the scheduled provisions to have been enacted by Parliament and to have remained in force up to 4 April 1991. The Court treated this as a permissible exercise of retrospective legislative power and rejected the contention that Parliament had exercised judicial power or overruled binding judgments.

Conclusion: The challenge to Parliament's competence failed and the validation of the levy was upheld.

Issue (ii): whether the impugned enactment merely validated past collections or also authorised recovery of unpaid amounts not collected by 4 April 1991.

Analysis: Once the scheduled levy provisions were deemed to have been enacted by Parliament with retrospective effect, the levy existed in law for the relevant period and was not confined to amounts already realised. The words validating actions taken, things done, and cesses realised were read as words of abundant caution, not limitation. The Court also held that the absence of an express recovery clause like the one used in another validation statute did not alter the effect of Section 2, because the substantive levy itself had been created retrospectively and the recovery machinery remained available for its enforcement.

Conclusion: The Act validated both realised and unrealised levies for the relevant period, and recovery of unpaid amounts was permissible.

Issue (iii): whether the levy failed under Article 14 because different States had different rates.

Analysis: Parliament was competent to enact a law applicable only to selected States and to adopt different rates where the historical and legislative context so justified. The rates reflected the pre-existing State-wise pattern and were not created by arbitrary Parliamentary preference. The Court held that the geographical differentiation was explained by the history of the State levies and did not amount to unconstitutional discrimination. The attack based on the supposed object of uniform mineral taxation also failed because Parliament could make an exception to its own general policy where the circumstances required it.

Conclusion: The levy was not violative of Article 14.

Issue (iv): whether the Act was a temporary statute that ceased to operate on 4 April 1991, leaving no machinery for recovery.

Analysis: The Act was enacted in 1992 and contained no language making it expire on 4 April 1991. That date was only the terminal date for the retrospective life of the validated levy, not the life of the statute itself. The Court further held that Section 2(3), preserving claims for excess payment, showed that the recovery and refund mechanism continued to operate for matters arising under the validated levy. The contention that no recovery could be made after 4 April 1991 was therefore rejected.

Conclusion: The Act was not a temporary statute, and recovery machinery remained available.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the validation statute, sustained the retrospective levy of cesses and taxes on minerals, and rejected the constitutional and interpretative challenges raised against the enactment.

Ratio Decidendi: Parliament may retrospectively validate and itself enact a tax or cess earlier imposed by incompetent State legislation, and where the levy is validly created for the relevant period, recovery of unpaid amounts is not confined to sums already collected unless the statute clearly so limits it.

---