2020 (2) TMI 1630 - HC - Indian Laws

Validity of notification dated 04.09.2019 passed by the Respondent-State Government amendingthe Schedule I II of the Chhattisgarh (Adhosamrachana Vikas Avam Paryavaran) Upkar Adhiniyam 2005 - revision of rate of Development Cess and Environment Cess - whether State Government is denuded of its power to enact any such provision or not? - matter has already subjudiced before the Hon ble Supreme Court so far as the validity of the act itself - HELD THAT - The Petitioner herein is directed to continue depositing of the Cess amount as per revised rate under protest as they have been doing in the past. The said deposit would be subject to the outcome of the Civil Appeals by the Hon ble Supreme Court. In the event if the Writ Petitions/ Civil Appeals are decided in favour of the Petitioner/Company the said amount shall be refunded or adjusted with the other heads payable to the State Government or as may be directed by the Hon ble Supreme Court while deciding the Civil Appeal. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to notification amending Development Cess and Environment Cess rates by State Government.

Analysis:
The petition challenges a notification amending the Chhattisgarh Upkar Adhiniyam, 2005, revising Development Cess and Environment Cess rates. The primary challenge is twofold: questioning the State Government's authority to enact such provisions and arguing that revising the Cess rates while the matter is sub judice before the Supreme Court is inappropriate.

A series of writ petitions, including W.P. 2445/2006, challenge the validity of the original Act, the Principle Act, 2005. These matters were considered by a Division Bench of the High Court, which noted that similar issues were being examined by the Supreme Court in various cases involving the constitutional validity of Acts enacted by different States.

The Division Bench disposed of the writ petitions by directing petitioners to continue paying the Cess amount under protest to the State Government, pending final decisions by the Supreme Court. The High Court emphasized that any rulings by the Supreme Court in related cases would be binding on all parties involved, ensuring compliance with the directions given.

Given the precedent set by the Division Bench in similar cases, the present writ petition is also disposed of in line with the previous order. The petitioner is instructed to keep depositing the Cess amount at the revised rate under protest, with refunds or adjustments to be made based on the outcome of the Civil Appeals/Writ Petitions pending before the Supreme Court.

In conclusion, the High Court's decision aligns with the approach taken in previous similar cases, emphasizing compliance with Supreme Court rulings and directing the petitioner to continue depositing the Cess amount as per the revised rate, subject to the final decisions of the Supreme Court.