Madras High Court
M/S.Dalmia Cement [Bharat] Ltd vs State Of Tamilnadu on 11 October, 2022
WP.No.2905 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.P.No.2905 of 2017
M/s.Dalmia Cement [Bharat] Ltd.,
Dalmiapuram, Lalgudi Taluk,
Tiruchirapalli District
Rep. by its Senior GM Legal T.A.Srinivasen ... Petitioner
Vs
1. State of Tamilnadu
Rep. by the Secretary to Government,
Industries Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of Geology &Mining,
Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. ... Respondents
Prayer:- This Writ Petition is filed, under the Article 226 of Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to
forthwith refund the undisputed liability of Rs.1.5 crores, which was
deposited with the second respondent pursuant to the terms of the directions
as set out in the minutes of the meeting with the first respondent dated
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.2905 of 2017
17.01.1997, which have become due and refundable consequent upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in favour of the petitioner dated
27.08.2001 in Civil Appeal Nos.5765 and 5766 of 2001 together with
interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of
refund.
For Petitioner : Mr.Rahul Balaji
For Respondents : Mr.S.Balamurugan
Government Advocate
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the first respondent to
forthwith refund the undisputed liability of Rs.1.5 crores, which was
deposited with the second respondent pursuant to the terms of the directions
as set out in the minutes of the meeting with the first respondent dated
17.01.1997, which have become due and refundable consequent upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in favour of the petitioner dated
27.08.2001 in Civil Appeal Nos.5765 and 5766 of 2001 together with
interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of
refund.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.2905 of 2017
2. The petitioner had several mining licenses in the district of
Tiruchirapalli and Perambalur, which it was exploiting under valid mining
licenses. While so, a demand was raised for a sum of Rs.21.47 crores vide
letter dated 09.04.1997 by the District Collector Tiruchirapalli towards
claim of Local Cess and Local Cess Surcharge with interest. Similarly the
District Collector of Perambalur had demanded a sum of Rs.25.49 crores
vide letters dated 09.04.97, 30.04.97 and 12.05.97 towards Local Cess and
Local Cess Surcharge with interest. The above levy of Local Cess and
Local Cess Surcharge has been challenged in W.P.Nos.8329 and 8330 of
1997. Thereafter, the Larger Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in
District Mining Officer Vs. TISCO reported in 2001 [7] SCC 358 has
held that the Local Cess and Local Surcharge could not be collected after
04.04.91. It is the case of the petitioner that the deposit of a sum of
Rs.1,50,00,000/- made in civil deposit as decided by the Government. It is
also agreed by the Government that the said deposit will be either adjusted
or refunded as per the Orders of the Honourable Supreme Court. Now, as
the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the amount levied towards
Local Cess and Local Surcharge could not be collected, the petitioner is
entitled to refund of the deposit made in a civil deposit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.2905 of 2017
3. Counter has not been filed all these years. Even the minutes dated
17.01.1997 regarding claim of arrears of local chess and local surcharge, it
has been clearly recorded to the effect that the civil deposit either be
adjusted or refunded on the basis of the decision of the Honourable Supreme
Court. Therefore, once the respondents have agreed to refund the deposit,
they are bound to refund the amount. Despite several reminders from the
year 2011, the Government has not refunded the amount.
4. I have perused the entire records. The Apex Court in Civil Appeal
Nos.5755 and 5756 of 2001 has allowed the writ appeal filed by the writ
petitioner following the judgment of the Larger Bench of Supreme Court in
District Mining Officer Vs. TISCO reported in 2001 [4] Scale 680.
Therefore, it is very clear that the Local Cess and Local Surcharge cannot be
collected by the respondents. As the respondents have received deposit to
the tune of Rs.1,50,00,000/- as Civil Deposit and in the minutes dated
17.01.1997 itself they have agreed to either adjust or refund the deposit, the
respondents are directed to refund the Civil Deposit to the petitioner with
nominal interest as per the banking regulations within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.2905 of 2017
5. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
11.10.2022
vrc
To,
1. The he Secretary to Government,
Industries Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of Geology &Mining,
Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.2905 of 2017
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vrc
WP.No.2905 of 2017
11.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
