Retrospective validation of cess levy defeats refund claim, while interest runs only from assessment dates under the amended regime.

A retrospective validating amendment cured the defect in the earlier cess levy by deeming the amounts collected during the relevant period to have been validly levied, paid, or collected notwithstanding prior court orders. That removed the legal foundation of the earlier declaration and defeated the refund claim based on the unamended levy. Interest on the cess, however, was linked to the assessments made under the amended regime and was recoverable only from the respective dates of assessment, not from an earlier date. The validating provisions were therefore effective to uphold the levy retrospectively, while interest remained confined to the assessment dates.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the retrospective amendment validating the cesses levied under the earlier enactments removed the basis of the earlier judgment and interim order so as to nullify the claim for refund with interest. (ii) Whether interest on the cess payable pursuant to the later judgment was recoverable only from the dates of assessment and not from an earlier date.

Issue (i): Whether the retrospective amendment validating the cesses levied under the earlier enactments removed the basis of the earlier judgment and interim order so as to nullify the claim for refund with interest.

Analysis: The amended provisions expressly deemed sums collected during the relevant period to have been validly levied, paid, or collected notwithstanding any judgment, decree, or order of any court. The amendment was held to change the basis on which the earlier invalidity had been declared by retrospectively altering the levy and curing the defect pointed out in the earlier judgment. The retrospective validation was distinguished from an impermissible direct undoing of a mandamus, because the legislature had removed the legal foundation of the earlier declaration.

Conclusion: The retrospective amendment displaced the earlier judgment and interim order to the extent they supported refund on the unamended levy; the challenge on that score failed.

Issue (ii): Whether interest on the cess payable pursuant to the later judgment was recoverable only from the dates of assessment and not from an earlier date.

Analysis: The later judgment was read with its interim order, under which enforcement was stayed but assessment could proceed. Interest was therefore linked to the cess that remained payable after assessment under the amended regime, and it became payable only from the respective dates of assessment for the relevant periods until recovery.

Conclusion: Interest was payable only from the dates of assessment and not from an earlier date.

Final Conclusion: The retrospective validating provisions were upheld as effective in removing the foundation of the earlier refund claim, while the direction regarding interest was maintained with the qualification that interest runs from the assessment dates.

Ratio Decidendi: A validating statute may retrospectively cure the defect found in an earlier tax levy and render the prior declaratory judgment ineffective by removing its basis, but interest liability follows the terms of the operative assessment and accrues only from the legally relevant date fixed by the amended regime.

---