ORISSA CEMENT LIMITED Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is a public limited company, with its registered office and place of business at Rajgangpur in the district of Sundergarh in Orissa. It possesses fireclay mines at Talabira in the District of Sambalpur. The Orissa: Mining Areas Development Fund Act, 1952 (Orissa Act 27 of 1952 hereinafter to the referred to as the Orissa Act) came into force on 23 -12 -1952. The object of the Act, as appears from the Preamble, was to constitute mining areas and a mining areas development fund in the State of Orissa. The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation Act, 1957 Central Act 67 of 1957 hereinafter to be referred to as the Central Act) came into force with effect from 1 -6 -1958. The validity of the Orissa Act vis -a -vis the Central Act was considered in State of Orissa v. Tulloch and Co., 1964 S.C.D. 951. Their Lordships held that with effect from 1 -6 -1958 the Orissa Act ceased to be in force. Opposite party No. 2 (Administrator, Orissa Mining areas Development Fund, Bhubaneswar) issued notice to the Petitioner on 5 -4 -1965 calling upon it to pay cess for the period 23 -4 -1958 to 31 -5 -1958 for the minerals extracted from Talabira Mines in Sambalpur mining area. The Petitioner challenged the notice asserting that its liability for the impugned period had not arisen till 1 -7 -1968 and as the Orissa Act ceased to operate with effect from 1.6.1958, there was no liability to pay cess. This contention was negatived by the Administrator of Orissa Mining Areas Development Fund. The writ application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the notice of demand issued on the Petitioner on 5 -4 -1965.

(2.) IN the original writ application there was some misstatement of facts which were also not properly clarified in the original counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties. On 4 -9 -1969 the learned Advocate -General filed an additional counter affidavit. Mr. Das for the Petitioner accepts the statements made in the counter -affidavit and this has been noted in our order passed on 5 -9 -1969.

(3.) THE stand taken by the opposite parties is that the Petitioner's liability to pay cess for the impugned period accrued prior to the coming into force of the Central Act on 1 -6 -1958 and the notice of demand issued on 5 -4 -1965 is valid.