2008 (1) TMI 915

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... B. Krishna Prasad, B. Partha Sarthy, Mohanprasad Meharia, Advocates with them for the appearing parties. ORDER [Order per : Arijit Pasayat, J.]. -  During the hearing of these appeals reliance was placed by the respondents in C.A. No. 5481/2002 on a decision of this Court in District Mining Officer and Ors. v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. and Anr. [2001 (7) SCC 358]. Appellant in the said appeal placed reliance on Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr. - 2001 (5) SCC 519. 2. High Court in the order impugned relied on District Mining Officer's case (supra) to hold that though levy up to 4-4-1991 was permissible, no collection of cess could be made. 3. In District Mining Officer's case (supra) it was, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the conclusion that the impugned Acts lacked legislative competence the result would have been that any tax collected would have become refundable as no State could retain the same because levy would be without the authority of law and contrary to Article 265 of the Constitution. At the same time, it was clearly stipulated that the States were restrained from enforcing the levy any further. The words used in Article 265 are "levy" and "collect". In taxing statute the words "levy" and "collect" are not synonymous terms (refer to CCE v. National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. [1972 (2) SCC 560 at p. 572], while "levy" would mean the assessment or charging or imposing tax, "collect" in Article 265 would mean the physical realisation of the tax whic....