STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. MAKERS DEVELOPMENT SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED THE ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - These two appeals are preferred against what may be described as rather unusual orders of Madhya Pradesh High Court. The facts which we shall presently narrate speak for themselves.

(2.) The Madhya Pradesh legislature enacted Madhya Pradesh Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam (Madhaya Pradesh Entry Tax Act) in the year 1976. It provides for levy of tax on entry of goods into a local area for consumption, use or sale therein. The Act is relatable to Entry 52 of List II of the VII Schedule to the Constitution of India. Under the Act, a notification was issued by the Government on 28th June. 1990 prescribing the rates of tax on two items including lime-stone. The levy on lime-stone was at the rate of 10% on the taxable quantum. The validity of the notification was challenged by the respondent herein by way of writ petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court. It was filed on 31-11-1991 and came up for admission on 6-2-1992. On the same day, and without sending a notice to the respondents in the writ petition, the Division Bench comprising the learned Chief Justice and Justice Issrani struck down the notification, following the decision of this Court in India Cements (1990) I SCC 12 (AIR 1990 SC 85) at the stage of admission itself. The Division Bench referred to Entries 23 and 49 of List II and held that the Act or the notification is not relatable to and is not within the purview of either of the said entries. There is no reference in the judgment to Entry 52 at all. The judgment is exclusively based upon India Cements which is not a decision relating to entry tax. It deals with the levy of cess on minerals by the State Government, which minerals were subject to payment of royalty under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. The learned counsel for the appellant says that the principle of India Cements has absolutely no relevance to the controversy in the writ petition. The respondent's counsel however submits that the principle of India Cements does apply herein and submits further that the Act in question is not relatable to Entry 52. but to certain other entries.

(3.) We are not inclined to go into the merits of the case in view of the fact that we are remanding the matter back to the High Court, in view of the wholly unsatisfactory manner in which the writ petition has been disposed of. The Division Bench not only disposed of the writ petition before it, even before issuing notice to and calling upon the State Government to file its counter, it also disposed of all other matters which were said to be pending in that Court on the said point and which were directed to come up for final hearing four weeks later. The following directions in the judgment may be quoted with advantage: