{"id":11498,"date":"2001-04-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-04-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-somaiya-organics-india-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-17-april-2001"},"modified":"2018-01-12T00:06:25","modified_gmt":"2018-01-11T18:36:25","slug":"ms-somaiya-organics-india-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-17-april-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-somaiya-organics-india-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-17-april-2001","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. … vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr on 17 April, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M\/S Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. … vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr on 17 April, 2001<\/div>\n
Author: Kirpal<\/div>\n
Bench: B.N. Kirpal, Syed Shah Quadri, M.B. Shah, K.G. Balakrishnan<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 4093  of  1991\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nM\/S SOMAIYA ORGANICS (INDIA) LTD. & ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t17\/04\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nB.N. Kirpal, Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, M.B. Shah &K.G. Balakrishnan\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
W I T HL…I…T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J<\/p>\n
    SLP\t (C)  No.  20018 of 1991, C.A.\tNos.  324  of  1981,
\n455,  2795, 1604 of 1980, 624, 625, 125, 2049 of 1981,\tI.A.
\nNos.   1 & 3 in W.P (C) No.  1892 of 973, C.A.\tNos.   1122,
\n181  of\t 1981, SLP (C) Nos.  4181, 4297- 4298 of 1980,\tC.A.
\nNos.   215,  341  of 1981, T.C.\t Nos.  37-39 of\t 1989,\tC.A.
\nNos.  2777 of 1981 and 1607 of 1980<\/p>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
KIRPAL, J.\n<\/p>\n
Civil Appeal No. 4093 of 1991 and
\nC.A. No. 2853 of 2001
\n( Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20018 of 1991)<\/p>\n
Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 20018 of 1991.\n<\/p>\n
    These  appeals are sequel to a judgment of this Court in
\nSynthetics and Chemicals Ltd.  and Others vs.  State of U.P.
\nand Others<\/a> wherein it was held that in respect of industrial
\nalcohol\t the States were not authorised to impose the impost
\nthey  had  purported to do.  By that judgment  delivered  on
\n25th  October, 1989 the Court overruled its earlier decision
\nin  State of U.P.  and Others vs.  Synthetics and  Chemicals
\nLtd.   and Others<\/a> wherein the validity of such an impost had
\nbeen  upheld.  By the second Synthetics case it was declared
\nthat the impugned provisions were illegal prospectively.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t question  which arises for consideration  in  these
\nappeals is whether the vend fee which had been levied by the
\nappropriate  State enactments, but not collected whether  by
\nreasons\t of  the  orders of the Court or otherwise,  can  be
\ncollected  now when the said provisions by the said judgment
\ndated  25th  October,  1989  have been held  to\t be  invalid
\nprospectively.\n<\/p>\n
    For\t the sake of convenience, we shall briefly refer  to
\nthe  facts  in\tC.A.   No.  4093 of  1991  Somaiya  Organics
\n(India)\t Ltd.  vs.  State of U.P.  & Anr.  The said  company
\nhad  established  a  plant at Barabanki for  manufacture  of
\nintermediaries\tout  of\t industrial alcohol.   Its  promoter
\ncompany\t had sold and transferred to the appellant  industry
\ndistillery  located at Captainganj.  The industrial  alcohol
\nmanufactured  by the distillery at Captainganj was captively
\nconsumed.   On\t8th  October, 1970 the\tappellant  had\tbeen
\nexempted  from paying vend fee which was leviable under\t the
\nU.P.   Excise Act, 1910.  On 9th October, 1979, the State of
\nU.P.\twithdrew   the\texemption   from  payment  of\tvend
\nfee\/purchase tax on industrial alcohol.\t This was challenged
\nby  the appellant by filing writ petitions in the  Allahabad
\nHigh  Court.   During  the pendency of\tthe  writ  petitions
\ninterim\t orders\t were passed by the High Court\twhereby\t the
\npetitioners before it were required to give a bank guarantee
\nand\/or\tpay  to the State the amounts directed by the  Court
\nwhich, in an earlier order, the High Court had directed that
\nit should be kept by the State in a separate account.\n<\/p>\n
    As\tnoticed\t hereinabove,  vide decision of\t a  Division
\nBench  of  this Court in first Synthetics &  Chemicals\tcase
\nrendered  on 19th December, 1979 the validity of the  impost
\nwas upheld.  Subsequently, on the matter being referred to a
\nBench  of  Seven  Judges,  by  the  second  Synthetics\tcase
\ndecision in 1989, the validity of the provisions of the said
\nActs  permitting levy of excise duty in the form of vend fee
\nwas struck down prospectively.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t High  Court  by the impugned  judgment\t dated\t29th
\nAugust,\t 1990 in Somaiyas case interpreted the direction in
\nthe   second  Synthetics  case\t relating   to\t prospective
\ndeclaration  to\t mean  that  for the period  prior  to\t25th
\nOctober, 1989 the amount payable in respect thereto could be
\nrecovered.   It held that once the levy for the period prior
\nto  25th  October, 1989 was saved further  steps  consequent
\nupon such levy were equally saved and recovery in respect of
\nthe  dues  prior to 25th October, 1989 could be effected  by
\nthe State.  The State was held to be entitled to realise the
\nvend fee for the period prior to 25th October, 1989.\n<\/p>\n
    When these appeals against the said decision came up for
\nhearing\t in this Court a Division Bench vide its order dated
\n26th  April, 1994 in Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd.\t vs.   State
\nof  U.P.   &  Others<\/a>  observed\t that  the  directions\t and
\nobservations  made  in the second Synthetics case  had\tbeen
\ndifferently  construed by Benches of this Court.  In view of
\nthis  apparent\tconflict  these appeals were referred  to  a
\nlarger Bench.  It is in pursuance thereto that these appeals
\nhave been heard.\n<\/p>\n
    It was contended by Shri K.K.  Venugopal, learned senior
\ncounsel\t for  the appellants, that in respect of  industrial
\nalcohol\t the State Legislature had no legislative competence
\nto  levy excise duty or any tax in that nature.\t Drawing our
\nattention  to  Entry 8 and 51 of List II, he submitted\tthat
\nthe  State  can impose excise duty only on  potable  liquor.
\nCorresponding  to  that is Entry 84 in List I which  enables
\nthe Parliament to levy excise duty except in regard to those
\nitems referred to in Entry 51 of List II.  Furthermore under
\nEntry  52 of List I the I.D.R.\tAct had been promulgated  by
\nthe  Parliament\t and  in  the First Schedule  Item  No.\t  26
\nrelated\t to  fermentation  industries.\tIn  respect  of\t the
\nindustries  referred to in the First Schedule to the  I.D.R.
\nAct it is only the Parliament which has jurisdiction to levy
\ntaxes  in  respect  thereto.  As such levy of  vend  fee  on
\nindustrial alcohol by the States was not valid.\n<\/p>\n
    It\tis also submitted that Article 162 provides that the
\nexecutive  power  of  a\t State\t is  co-extensive  with\t its
\nlegislative  power.  Inasmuch as a State cannot levy  excise
\nduty  on industrial alcohol being outside the ambit of Entry
\n51  of List II, the State Government cannot, in exercise  of
\nits  executive\tpower, recover the excise duty.\t After\t25th
\nOctober,  1989\tlaw ceased to exist in respect of  levy\t and
\ncollection of excise duty on industrial alcohol by reason of
\nwant   of  legislative\tcompetence.   As  such\t the   State
\nGovernment  could  not exercise executive power and  collect
\nexcise duty on industrial alcohol.\n<\/p>\n
    It\twas  contended\tthat  under   Article  265  of\t the
\nConstitution  no tax can be levied or collected without\t the
\nauthority  of law.  The submission was that authority of law
\nmeans  that  there  should  be\t a  lawful  enactment  which
\nauthorised  the\t levy and collection of tax.  Tax cannot  be
\nlevied\tand collected by virtue of a decision of a Court  in
\nthe  absence  of  any statutory provision.  It\twas  further
\nsubmitted  that in series of decisions of this Court, one of
\nthe  examples being that of M.P.V.  Sundararamier & Co.\t vs.
\nThe  State of Andhra Pradesh & Another<\/a> it had been held that
\nthe  law  which\t is  declared ultra vires  due\tto  lack  of
\nlegislative  competence would be void ab initio and the same
\ncould  not  be\tmade operative.\t The effect  of\t the  second
\njudgment  in  Synthetics case was that after  25th  October,
\n1989  no levy or collection could take place.  In respect of
\nthe  period prior to 25th October, 1989 even if tax had been
\nlevied\tand\/or\tdemand raised the contention of the  learned
\ncounsel was that the same could not be collected.\n<\/p>\n
    On\tbehalf\tof the respondents it was contended by\tShri
\nRakesh\tDwivedi that declaration of the provisions as  being
\nillegal prospectively meant that prior to 25th October, 1989
\nall the provisions were valid.\tHe submitted that this meant
\nthat  the said provisions were capable of being enforced for
\nthe  period  prior  to\tthe said date.\t He  contended\tthat
\nliability  to  pay  vend  fee\tgets  attracted\t the  moment
\nindustrial  alcohol is issued.\tSince this was issued during
\nthe  period  31st  May,\t 1979 and  25th\t October,  1989\t the
\nappellants  had\t become liable to pay vend fee.\t  Once\tthis
\nliability  prior  to 25th October, 1989 is held to be  valid
\nthen  the  State  was  entitled to  collect  the  same.\t  He
\nstrongly relied on the reasoning of the High Court which had
\nobserved  that it would be unreasonable if the\tobservations
\nin  the second Synthetics case were understood as  entitling
\nthe  appellants\t to retain the vend fee despite\t prospective
\noverruling  because those who have paid the vend fee for the
\nsame  period would stand in a disadvantageous position\twhen
\ncompared  to  those who did not pay the vend fee in view  of
\nthe  interim orders although in both the cases liability  to
\ntax  arises at the time of issuance of the alcohol.  Such an
\ninterpretation,\t it  was contended, would be  arbitrary\t and
\nviolative of Article 14 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t doctrine of prospective overruling was simply based
\non  equity  and\t full effect must be given thereto  and\t the
\nState  should  be  permitted to recover the unpaid  levy  in
\nrespect\t of  the period prior to 25th October,\t1989.\tShri
\nDwivedi\t further  submitted that in any case payments  which
\nhave  been  made under the interim orders of the High  Court
\ncould  be retained by the State and this clearly flows\tfrom
\nthe directions of this Court in paragraph 89 of the judgment
\nin  second Synthetics case.  The learned counsel, of course,
\ncontended  that\t even in respect of amounts secured by\tbank
\nguarantee the State would be entitled to collect the same.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthe  present case the State of Uttar  Pradesh,\tlike
\nsome  other  States,  had  levied vend\tfee  in\t respect  of
\nindustrial  alcohol  under the U.P.  Excise Act, 1910.\t The
\nvalidity  of the same was challenged and a Division Bench of
\nthis  Court in State of U.P.  and Others (supra) had  upheld
\nits  validity.\tSubsequently a review petition was filed  in
\nrespect\t of the said judgment and another Writ Petition\t No.
\n182  of\t 1980 was also filed by Synthetics & Chemicals\tLtd.
\nchallenging a notification dated 31st August, 1979 whereby a
\nnew rule was introduced, in place of existing one, providing
\nfor  levy  of vend fee.\t This was challenged and a Bench  of
\nSeven  Judges  in Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd.\t and  Others
\n(supra)\t in  paragraph 82 recorded its conclusion  that\t the
\nrelevant  provisions  of the U.P.  Act and similar  Acts  of
\nAndhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Bombay were unconstitutional
\ninsofar\t as  these purported to levy a tax or charge  impost
\nupon industrial alcohol, namely, alcohol used and usable for
\nindustrial purposes.\n<\/p>\n
    Having  come  to  the  conclusion\tthat  the  levy\t was
\nunconstitutional  the  Court,  as  far\tas  the\t relief\t was
\nconcerned, observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
    89.\t  We must, however, observe, that these imposts and
\nlevies\thave been imposed by virtue of the decision of\tthis
\nCourt  in Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd.  case.  The States  as
\nwell  as  the  petitioners and manufacturers  have  adjusted
\ntheir  rights and their position on that basis except in the
\ncase of State of Tamil Nadu.  In that view of the matter, it
\nwould  be  necessary  to  state that  these  provisions\t are
\ndeclared  to be illegal prospectively.\tIn other words,\t the
\nrespondents  States  are restrained from enforcing the\tsaid
\nlevy  any further but the respondents will not be liable for
\nany  refund and the tax already collected and paid will\t not
\nbe  refunded.  We prospectively declare these imposts to  be
\nillegal\t and  invalid,\tbut do not affect  any\trealisations
\nalready\t made.\t The  writ  petitions and  the\tappeals\t are
\ndisposed of accordingly.  The review petitions, accordingly,
\nsucceed\t though\t strictly no grounds as such have been\tmade
\nout  but  in  view  we\thave  taken,  the  decision  in\t the
\nSynthetics  & Chemicals Ltd.  case cannot be upheld.  In the
\nview we have taken also, it is not necessary to decide or to
\nadjudicate  if the levy is valid as to who would be  liable,
\nthat  is  to  say, the manufacturer or the producer  or\t the
\ndealer.\n<\/p>\n
    90.\t  With\tregard\tto Writ Petition No.  4051  of\t1978
\n(Chemicals  & Plastics India Ltd.  v.  State of Tamil Nadu),
\ncertain\t orders\t were  passed by this Court on\tNovember  1,
\n1978,  September  1, 1986, October 1, 1986 and\tOctober\t 10,
\n1986.\tIt is stated that the present demand of the  Central
\nExcise Department from March 1, 1986 on alcohol manufactured
\nby  the\t company in their captive distillery is over Rs.   4
\nCrores.\t  This\tCourt by its order dated October 1, 1986  as
\nconfirmed  on  October\t16,  1986 had  permitted  the  State
\nGovernment  to\tcollect the levy on alcohol manufactured  in
\ncompany’s  captive  distillery\tsubject\t  to  adjustment  of
\nequities  and restrained the central excise authorities from
\ncollecting  any\t excise\t duty  on   such  alcohol.   It\t is,
\ntherefore,  necessary  to declare that in future no  further
\nrealisation  will  be made in respect of this by  the  State
\nGovernment  from  the  petitioners.   So  far  as  the\tpast
\nrealisations  made  are\t concerned,  we\t direct\t that\tthis
\napplication  for  that\tpart  of the  direction,  should  in
\naccordance  with  our  decision herein be  placed  before  a
\nDivision  Bench\t for disposal upon notice both to the  State
\nGovernment and the Central Government.\n<\/p>\n
    It\tis  contended on behalf of the appellants  that\t the
\ndeclaration  in\t paragraph 82 of the said judgment that\t the
\nimpugned  provisions of the said Acts were  unconstitutional
\nwas  a\tdeclaration by this Court under Article 141  of\t the
\nConstitution.  The observations and the directions contained
\nin  paragraphs 89 and 90 supra indicated the exercise of the
\nCourts jurisdiction under Article 142.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthe  present case in respect of the period prior  to
\n25th  October,\t1989,  when the second Synthetics  case\t was
\ndecided in respect of the appellants, demand had been raised
\nunder the impugned Acts and for some period payment had been
\nmade  and  in respect of other periods payment to the  State
\nGovernments  had  not  been  made.  The\t contention  of\t the
\nappellants is that in view of the observations of this Court
\nin  paragraph 89 the appellants may not be entitled to claim
\nrefund\tof the taxes already paid but, at the same time, the
\nState  Government  is not entitled to collect the  taxes  in
\nrespect of the period prior to 25th October, 1989, i.e.\t the
\ndate  on which the judgment was delivered.  It was, however,
\nsubmitted that in those cases where money was deposited with
\nthe  State on the condition that the same will be kept in  a
\nseparate  account and would be subject to the outcome of the
\nwrit  petition,\t the appellants would be entitled to  refund
\nthereof.\n<\/p>\n
    Shri  R.F.\t Nariman,  learned senior  counsel  for\t the
\nappellants  referred  to Supreme Court Bar  Association\t vs.
\nUnion  of India and Another<\/a> (at page 430) and contended that
\nunder Article 142 of the Constitution this Court cannot pass
\nany  order  which  is  contrary\t to  any  constitutional  or
\nstatutory   provision.\t The  effect  of  the  decision\t  in
\nSynthetics  case  being that the impugned Acts were  without
\nlegislative  competence\t and those laws must be regarded  as
\nnonest\tas if they did not exist.  The validity of the\tsaid
\nlaws  which had earlier been upheld in the first  Synthetics
\ncase  got wiped out with a review petition against the first
\nSynthetics  case being allowed and the declaration of law in
\nthe Synthetics case.  He contended that the directions given
\nin  paragraph  89 was to do complete justice in exercise  of
\nthe  power  under Article 142 and the effect of\t prospective
\noverruling  was clearly specified in the said para where  it
\nis observed that in other words, the respondents States are
\nrestrained  from enforcing the said levy any further but the
\nrespondents  will  not be liable for any refund and the\t tax
\nalready collected and paid will not be refunded.\n<\/p>\n
    It\twas also submitted by Shri Nariman that there is  no
\njurisprudential\t  basis\t for  applying\t the   doctrine\t  of
\nprospective  overruling\t in India.  He submitted  that\tthis
\ndoctrine  was first invoked in I.C.  Golak Nath & Ors.\t vs.
\nState  of Punjab & Anrs.  where Chief Justice K.  Subba\t Rao
\nfor  himself  and  five\t other judges  invoked\tan  American
\ndoctrine  to  that effect.  Shri Nariman contended that\t the
\nother six judges did not subscribe to this and in fact three
\nof  the\t judges\t through  the judgment\tof  Justice  Wanchoo
\nexpressly  came\t to  the  conclusion that  the\tdoctrine  of
\nprospective overruling was against the provisions of Article
\n13(2)  of  the\tConstitution.\tIn our\topinion\t it  is\t not
\nnecessary  nor appropriate for us to go into this  question.
\nWe  are only concerned with the interpretation and effect of
\nthe  Second judgment in Synthetics case and not with  regard
\nto the correctness of the same.\n<\/p>\n
    It was contended by Shri Nariman that the vend fee which
\nwas  deposited\tin  Court consequent on\t the  interim  order
\npassed\tin respect thereto clearly stipulated that the\tsame
\nshould\tbe  kept  in  a separate  account.   He,  therefore,
\nsubmitted  that\t this  cannot be regarded as a\tpayment\t the
\nrefund\tof which the appellant was not entitled to by reason
\nof  the\t aforesaid observations in the second  Synthetics  &
\nChemicals  judgment.  He contended that the direction,\tthat
\nthe  amount  received  by  the State should  be\t kept  in  a
\nseparate  account,  entitled the appellants to get back\t the
\nsaid  amount  once  it was held that the  State\t Legislature
\nlacked\tlegislative  competence to impose such a  levy.\t  He
\nfurther\t submitted that in any case the High Court was wrong
\nin  coming  to\tthe  conclusion that there  was\t any  unjust
\nenrichment  and, therefore, there should be no refund of the
\nlevy in question.\n<\/p>\n
    Shri  Sunil\t Gupta\tappearing  on  behalf  of  Hindustan
\nPolymers  Ltd.\t while reiterating the submissions of  other
\ncounsel\t  further  contended  that   furnishing\t of  a\tbank
\nguarantee does not tantamount to payment of tax.  He invited
\nour  attention to the decision of this Court in the case  of
\nOswal Agro Mills Ltd.  and Another vs.\tAsstt.\tCollector of
\nCentral\t Excise,  Division  Ludhiana and Others<\/a> .   In\tthat
\ncase,  pursuant\t to  an interim order passed by\t this  Court
\nstaying\t the  recovery of excise duty a bank  guarantee\t had
\nbeen  furnished.   The assessees appeal was allowed and\t it
\nclaimed\t the refund of the bank guarantee which had  already
\nbeen  encashed\tby  the\t excise\t authorities.\tThe  Revenue
\ncontended  that the bank guarantee should be deemed to\thave
\nbeen  an equivalent to money deposited in Court and as\tsuch
\nSection\t 11-B  of  the Excise Act stood\t attracted  and\t the
\nappellants having failed to establish before the authorities
\nconcerned  that they had not passed on the incidence thereof
\nto  the\t customers, the authorities were entitled to  encash
\nthe  bank guarantee and retain the amount thereof.  Allowing
\nthe  appeal and holding that the provisions of Section\t11-B
\nwere  not  applicable in the case of furnishing of the\tbank
\nguarantee, this Court observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
    9.\tSection 11-B applies when an assessee claims refund
\nof  excise  duty.   A  claim  for  refund  is  a  claim\t for
\nrepayment.   It\t presupposes that the amount of\t the  excise
\nduty  has  been paid over to the excise authorities.  It  is
\nthen  that the excise authorities would be required to repay
\nor refund the excise duty.\n<\/p>\n
    10.\t  The question, therefore, is whether it can be said
\nthat  the furnishing of a bank guarantee for all or part  of
\nthe  disputed excise duty pursuant to an order of the  court
\nis  equivalent to payment of the amount of the excise  duty.
\nIn  our\t view,\tthe  answer is in  the\tnegative.   For\t the
\npurposes of securing the revenue in the event of the revenue
\nsucceeding  in\tproceedings before a court, the court, as  a
\ncondition  of  staying\tthe demand for the disputed  tax  or
\nduty,  imposes a condition that the assessee shall provide a
\nbank  guarantee\t for the full amount of such tax or duty  or
\npart  thereof.\t The bank guarantee is required to be  given
\neither\tin favour of the principal administrative officer of
\nthe  court or in favour of the revenue authority  concerned.
\nIn  the\t event\tthat the revenue fails\tin  the\t proceedings
\nbefore the court the question of payment of the tax or duty,
\nthe  amount of which is covered by the bank guarantee,\tdoes
\nnot  arise and, ordinarily, the court, at the conclusion  of
\nits  order,  directs  that the bank  guarantee\tshall  stand
\ndischarged.   Where  the revenue succeeds the amount of\t the
\ntax  or duty becomes payable by the assessee to the  revenue
\nand  it is open to the revenue to invoke the bank  guarantee
\nand  demand payment thereon.  The bank guarantee is security
\nfor  the revenue, that in the event the revenue succeeds its
\ndues will be recoverable, being backed by the guarantee of a
\nbank.\tIn the event, however unlikely, of the bank refusing
\nto  honour  its\t guarantee  it would be\t necessary  for\t the
\nrevenue\t or,  where the bank guarantee is in favour  of\t the
\nprincipal  administrative officer of the court, that officer
\nto  file a suit against the bank for the amount due upon the
\nbank guarantee.\t The amount of the disputed tax or duty that
\nis secured by a bank guarantee cannot, therefore, be held to
\nbe  paid to the revenue.  There is no question of its refund
\nand Section 11-B is not attracted.\n<\/p>\n
    When  this Court decided in I.C.  Golak Naths case that
\nthe power of amendment under Article 368 of the Constitution
\ndid  not allow Parliament to abridge the fundamental  rights
\nin  Part  III  of  the Constitution, it\t made  the  decision
\noperative  with\t prospective  effect.\t This  was  done  in
\nrecognition  of the fact that between the coming into  force
\nof the Constitution on 26th January 1950 and the date of the
\njudgment,  Parliament  had  in fact exercised the  power  of
\namendment  in  a  way which, according to  the\tdecision  in
\nGolaknath  was void.  If retrospectivity were to be given to
\nthe  decision,\tit  would  introduce  chaos  and  unsettled
\nconditions  in\tour  country.  On the other  hand  it  also
\nrecognised   that  such\t possibility  of  chaos\t  might\t  be
\npreferable  to the alternative of a totalitarian rule.\t The
\nCourt,\t therefore,  sought  to\t  evolve  some\t reasonable
\nprinciple  to  meet  this   extraordinary  situation.\tThe
\nreasonable  principle which was evolved was the doctrine  of
\nprospective overruling.\n<\/p>\n
    Although  the doctrine of prospective overruling,  was
\ndrawn from American jurisprudence, it has\/had, of necessity,
\nto  develop  indigenous characteristics.  The parameters  of
\nthe power as far as this country is concerned were sought to
\nbe laid down in Golaknath itself when it was said:\n<\/p>\n
    As\tthis Court for the first time has been called  upon
\nto  apply the doctrine evolved in a different country  under
\ndifferent circumstances, we would like to move warily in the
\nbeginning.   We\t would lay down the following  propositions:
\n(1)  The doctrine of prospective over-ruling can be  invoked
\nonly  in matters arising under our Constitution;  (2) it can
\nbe  applied only by the highest court of the country,  i.e.,
\nthe  Supreme Court as it has the constitutional jurisdiction
\nto  declare law binding on all the courts in India;  (3) the
\nscope  of  the retroactive operation of the law declared  by
\nthe  Supreme Court superseding its earlier decisions is left
\nto  its\t discretion  to be moulded in  accordance  with\t the
\njustice of the cause or matter before it.\n<\/p>\n
The parameters have not been adhered to in practice.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t word  prospective overruling implies  an  earlier
\njudicial  decision  on\tthe same issue which  was  otherwise
\nfinal.\t That  is  how\tit   was  understood  in  Golaknath.
\nHowever, this Court has used the power even when deciding on
\nan issue for the first time.  Thus in India Cement Ltd.\t and
\nOthers vs.  State of Tamil Nadu and Others<\/a> , when this Court
\nheld  that the cess sought to be levied under Section 115 of
\nthe  Madras Panchayats Act, 1958 as amended by Madras Act 18
\nof  1964, was unconstitutional, not only did it restrain the
\nState  of Tamil Nadu from enforcing the same any further, it
\nalso  directed\tthat the State would not be liable  for\t any
\nrefund of cess already paid or collected.\n<\/p>\n
    This direction was considered in Orissa Cement Ltd.\t vs.
\nState  of  Orissa and Others<\/a> at page 498 where it  was\theld
\nthat:\n<\/p>\n
    .\tThe  declaration  regarding the invalidity  of\ta
\nprovision and the determination of the relief that should be
\ngranted\t in consequent thereof are two different things and,
\nin  the\t latter sphere, the Court has, and must be  held  to
\nhave,  a certain amount of discretion.\tIt is a well settled
\nproposition  that it is open to the Court to grant, mould or
\nrestrict  the  relief  in a manner most appropriate  to\t the
\nsituation  before  it  in  such\t a way\tas  to\tadvance\t the
\ninterests of justice.  It will be appreciated that it is not
\nalways\tpossible  in  all situations to give a\tlogical\t and
\ncomplete effect to a finding..\n<\/p>\n
    Again  in  Union of India and Others vs.  Mohd.   Ramzan
\nKhan<\/a>  ,\t it  was held that non-furnishing of a copy  of\t the
\ninquiry\t report to an employee amounted to violation of\t the
\nprinciples  of\tnatural justice and any disciplinary  action
\ntaken  without\tfurnishing such report was liable to be\t set
\naside.\t However, it was made clear that the decision  would
\nhave  prospective application so that no punishment  already
\nimposed would be open to challenge on this count.  (See also
\nManaging  Director,  ECIL,  Hyderabad  and  Others  vs.\t  B.
\nKarunakar and Others<\/a> .\n<\/p>\n
    In\t the  ultimate\t analysis,  prospective\t overruling,
\ndespite\t the  terminology,  is\tonly a\trecognition  of\t the
\nprinciple  that the court moulds the reliefs claimed to meet
\nthe  justice of the case  justice not in its logical but in
\nits  equitable sense.  As far as this country is  concerned,
\nthe power has been expressly conferred by Article 142 of the
\nConstitution which allows this Court to pass such decree or
\nmake  such order as is necessary for doing complete  justice
\nin  any cause or matter pending before it.  In exercise\t of
\nthis  power, this Court has often denied the relief  claimed
\ndespite\t holding  in  the claimants favour in  order  to  do
\ncomplete justice.\n<\/p>\n
    Given  this\t constitutional discretion, it\twas  perhaps
\nunnecessary  to\t resort\t to  any  principle  of\t prospective
\nover-ruling  a\tview which was expressed in Narayanibai\t vs.
\nState of Maharashtra & Others<\/a> at page 470 and in Ashok Kumar
\nGupta  and Another vs.\tState of U.P.  and Others .  In\t the
\nlatter case, while dealing with the doctrine of prospective
\noverruling, this Court said that it was a method evolved by
\nthe  Courts  to adjust competing rights of parties so as  to
\nsave transactions whether statutory or otherwise, that were
\neffected  by the earlier law.  According to this Court,\t it
\nwas  a\trule of judicial craftsmanship with pragmatism\tand
\njudicial  statesmanship\t as a useful outline to bring  about
\nsmooth\ttransition  of the operation of law  without  unduly
\naffecting  the\trights of the people who acted upon the\t law
\noperated  prior\t to the date of the judgment overruling\t the
\nprevious  law. Ultimately, it is a question of this Courts
\ndiscretion  and\t is, for this reason, relatable directly  to
\nthe words of the Court granting the relief.\n<\/p>\n
    Reading  the  two paragraphs 89 and 90 together it\tdoes
\nappear\tthat  this  Court regarded the\tdeclaration  of\t the
\nprovisions  being illegal prospectively as only meaning that
\nif  the States had already collected the tax they would\t not
\nbe liable to pay back the same.\t It is the States which were
\nprotected  as  a result of the declaration for otherwise  on
\nthe  conclusion\t that the impugned Acts\t lacked\t legislative
\ncompetence the result would have been that any tax collected
\nwould  have  become refundable as no State could retain\t the
\nsame  because levy would be without the authority of law and
\ncontrary  to  Article 265 of the Constitution.\tAt the\tsame
\ntime,  it  was\tclearly\t stipulated  that  the\tStates\twere
\nrestrained  from enforcing the levy any further.  The  words
\nused  in  Article 265 are levy and collect.   In  taxing
\nstatute\t the  words levy and collect are not  synonymous
\nterms,\t(refer\tto  Assistant Collector of  Central  Excise,
\nCalcutta  Division vs.\tNational Tobacco Co.  of India\tLtd.<\/a>
\nat  page  572,\twhile levy would mean  the  assessment\tor
\ncharging  or  imposing tax, collect in Article\t265  would
\nmean  the physical realisation of the tax which is levied or
\nimposed.   Collection of tax is normally a stage  subsequent
\nto the levy of the same.  The enforcement of levy could only
\nmean  realisation of the tax imposed or demanded.  That\t the
\nStates\twere  prevented to recover the tax, if\tnot  already
\nrealised,  in  respect of the period prior to 25th  October,
\n1989  is further evident from paragraph 90 of the  judgment.
\nThe said paragraph shows that as on the date of the judgment
\nfor  the period subsequent to 1st March, 1986 the demand  of
\nthe  Central  Excise Department on the alcohol\tmanufactured
\nwas  over  Rs.\t4 Crores.  The Court referred to its  orders
\ndated  1st October, 1986 and 16th October, 1986 whereby\t the
\nState  Government  was\tpermitted  to collect  the  levy  on
\nalcohol\t manufactured  in the companys distilleries.   With
\nrespect to the said amount of Rs.  4 Crores, it was observed
\nthat  it is, therefore, necessary to declare that in future
\nno  further  realisation will be made in respect of this  by
\nthe State Government from the petitioners.  The implication
\nclearly\t was  that  if\tout  of\t Rs.   4  Crores  the  State
\nGovernment  had collected some levy the balance\t outstanding
\ncannot be collected after 25th October, 1989.\n<\/p>\n
    After  the\tdecision  in  second  Synthetics  case\tWrit
\nPetition  Nos.\t 7452  of  1981 and 3571 of  1982  –  Sachid
\nHussain\t &  Anr.  vs.  The State of U.P.  & Ors.  – came  up
\nfor hearing.  A Bench of Three Judges presided over by Chief
\nJustice\t Mukherji, who had delivered the judgment in  second
\nSynthetics  case  vide\torder\tdated  26th  February,\t1990
\ndisposing of the said writ petitions observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
    In\tview  of the judgement of this Court in\t Synthetics
\nand Chemicals Limited and Others vs.  State of Uttar Pradesh
\n1990  (1)  SCC\t109,  these   writ  petitions  are   allowed
\nprospectively\tand  the  levy\tis   declared  to   be\t bad
\nprospectively.\tSince no refund is claimed, there will be an
\norder  in terms of prayers (1) and (2) of the writ petitions
\nviz.   the  recovery  order issued by the  Excise  Inspector
\ndated  14th September, 1981 for a sum of Rs.68,200\/- against
\nthe petitioners are quashed and the respondents are directed
\nnot to recover the amount of Rs.68,200\/- from the petitioner
\ntowards vend fee for the period from 9.4.75 to 11.7.78.\n<\/p>\n
    To\tthe  same effect is another order dated 12th  March,
\n1990  again  by\t a  Bench presided  over  by  Chief  Justice
\nMukherji  in Writ Petition No.\t8435 of 1981 – Yawar Ali vs.
\nThe  State of U.P.  & Ors.  By these two orders the State of
\nU.P.   was  directed not to recover the amounts\t outstanding
\ndespite\t recovery notices having been issued on a date prior
\nto  25th  October,  1989.  These two  orders  are  important
\ninasmuch  as the author of the judgment in second Synthetics
\ncase  understood his own decision of prospective  overruling
\nto  imply  that if a levy in respect of the  period  earlier
\nthan 25th October, 1989 has not been recovered by the excise
\nauthorities  then  notwithstanding a recovery  order  having
\nbeen  issued  the  State  was not entitled  to\trecover\t the
\namount.\t It can be said that in 1990 Chief Justice Mukherji,
\nalong  with  two  companion Judges interpreted\this  earlier
\ndecision  in a manner which clearly showed that paragraph 89
\nof  the\t judgment  in the second Synthetics case  could\t not
\nentitle\t the  State  to\t physically receive  any  amount  in
\nrespect\t of  the levy for the period prior to 25th  October,
\n1989  even though it could be said that the levy before that
\ndate  was not invalid because of the doctrine of prospective
\noverruling.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t doctrine  of prospective overruling was applied  in
\nBelsund\t Sugar\tCo.  Ltd.  vs.\tState of Bihar and Others  .
\nThe question which arose for consideration there was whether
\nmarket\tfee  could  be levied under  the  Bihar\t Agriculture
\nProduce\t Markets  Act,\t1960 in respect to  transactions  of
\npurchase  of  sugarcane, sugar and molasses by sugar  mills.
\nIn view of the provisions of the Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation
\nof  Supply and Purchase) Act, 1981 read with Sugar (Control)
\nOrder,\t1966 issued under the Essential Commodities Act,  it
\nwas  held  that the provisions of the Sugarcane Act and\t the
\nSugarcane  Order, on the one hand, and the Bihar Market\t Act
\non  the other could not operate harmoniously and, therefore,
\nthe Sugarcane Act and the Sugarcane Order prevailed over the
\nMarket\tAct.   It  was then contended  that  the  appellants
\ntherein\t should\t be allowed to get refund of the market\t fee
\nwhich  they  had paid under the Market Act subject to  their
\nshowing\t that  they  had  not passed on the  burden  on\t the
\nprinciple  of  unjust  enrichment.  Dealing with  the  above
\ncontentions, it was observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
    112.  .Under these circumstances, keeping in view the
\npeculiar  facts and circumstances of these cases, we deem it
\nfit  to\t direct in exercise our powers under Article 142  of
\nthe  Constitution  of India that the present  decision\twill
\nhave  only a prospective effect.  Meaning thereby that after
\nthe  pronouncement of this judgment all future\ttransactions
\nof purchase of sugarcane by the sugar factories concerned in
\nthe  market areas as well as the sale of manufactured  sugar
\nand  molasses  produced\t by   therefrom\t by  utilising\tthis
\npurchased sugarcane by these factories will not be subjected
\nto the levy of market fee under Section 27 of the Market Act
\nby  the Market Committees concerned.  All past\ttransactions
\nup to the date of this judgment which have suffered the levy
\nof  market fee will not be covered by this judgment and\t the
\ncollected  market  fees on these past transactions prior  to
\nthe  date  of  this  judgment will not\tbe  required  to  be
\nrefunded  to  any of the sugar mills which might  have\tpaid
\nthese market fees.\n<\/p>\n
    113.   However,  one  rider\t has to\t be  added  to\tthis
\ndirection.   If\t any  of  the  Market  Committees  has\tbeen
\nrestrained   from  recovering  market\tfee  from  the\twrit
\npetitioners  in\t the  High  Court  or if  any  of  the\twrit
\npetitioners  in\t the High Court has, as an appellant  before
\nthis Court, obtained stay of the payment of market fee, then
\nfor  the  period  during which such stay  has  operated\t and
\nconsequently  market  fee was not paid on  the\ttransactions
\ncovered\t by such stay orders, there will remain no  occasion
\nfor  the  Market Committee concerned to recover such  market
\nfee  from  the sugar mill concerned after the date  of\tthis
\njudgment  even for such past transactions.  In other  words,
\nmarket\tfees  paid  in\tthe  past  shall  not  be  refunded.
\nSimilarly  market fees not collected in the past also  shall
\nnot  be collected hereafter.  The impugned judgments of\t the
\nHigh  Court  in this group of sugar matters will  stand\t set
\naside as aforesaid.  The writ petition directly filed before
\nthis  Court  also  will\t be required to be  allowed  in\t the
\naforesaid terms.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t aforesaid observations make clear what was implicit
\nin  paragraph 89 of the second Synthetics case, namely, that
\nwhere  payment\thas  not actually been made  to\t the  Market
\nCommittee  for\ta  period prior to the announcement  of\t the
\njudgment,  by reason of the assessee having obtained a stay,
\nthe  Market Committee was not entitled to recover the market
\nfee,  payment of which had been stayed.\t It was pithily\t put
\nin  Belsund  Sugar Co.\tLtd.s case (supra) that\t “in  other
\nwords  market fees paid in the past was not to be  refunded.
\nSimilarly  market fees not collected in the past was not  to
\nbe   collected\thereafter.   These   observations  are\t in
\nconsonance  with the directions given in paragraph 89 of the
\njudgment  in  second Synthetics case and applying  the\tsaid
\nprinciples  to the present appeals the only conclusion which
\ncan be arrived at is that this Court intended the status quo
\nas  on 25th October, 1989 to be maintained as regards actual
\npayment or levy was concerned.\tWhat had gone to the coffers
\nto  the Government with or without any string attached,\t was
\nto  remain  with it and what was not received could  not  be
\nrealised by the Government.\n<\/p>\n
    It\tis,  of\t course, true that in respect  of  the\tsame
\nperiod\ti.e.   prior to 25th October, 1989 persons  who\t had
\nobtained  stay\torders\tor had otherwise not paid  the\tlevy
\nwould  be better off than those who have deposited the\tsums
\nwith  the  Government  and are not entitled to\treceive\t any
\nrefund.\t  This\tsituation, however, is unavoidable  for\t the
\nsimple reason that Article 265 does not permit collection of
\ntax without the authority of law.  Even though levy prior to
\n25th  October,\t1989  may  be  valid but  when\tin  fact  no
\ncollection  was\t made pursuant to the said levy,  then\tpost
\njudgment  in  the second Synthetics case collection  is\t not
\npermissible.   After  25th October, 1989 there was no  valid
\nlaw  in\t existence  which permitted the collection  of\ttax.
\nShri  Venugopal\t is  right  in contending  that\t after\t25th
\nOctober,  1989\tthe  provisions of Section 39  of  the\tU.P.
\nExcise\tAct,  1910  which provides for\trecovery  of  excise
\nrevenue\t would be inapplicable.\t The said section inter alia
\nstates\tthat  all excise revenue may be recovered  from\t the
\nperson\tprimarily liable to pay the same, as arrears of land
\nrevenue or in the manner provided for the recovery of public
\ndemands\t by  any law for the time being in  force.   Section
\n3(1)  defines excise revenue as meaning revenue derived or
\nderivable  from\t any  duty  if the taxes  etc.\t imposed  or
\nordered\t under the provisions of the Act or of any other law
\nfor  the time being in force.  Section 3(3a) defines excise
\nduty  and countervailing duty as meaning any such  excise
\nduty or countervailing duty, as may be mentioned in Entry 51
\nof  List  II  of the Seventh Schedule of  the  Constitution.
\nThere  can  be no excise duty under the U.P.  Excise Act  on
\nindustrial  alcohol because that would be outside the  ambit
\nof  Entry  51 of List II of the Seventh Schedule.  Vend\t fee
\nbeing regarded as excise duty on industrial alcohol which is
\nnot valid as not falling under Entry 51 of List II cannot be
\nregarded  as  excise revenue and, therefore, at least  after
\n25th  October, 1989 it would be unrecoverable being  outside
\nthe purview of the Section 39 of the U.P.  Excise Act, 1910.
\nThis  would clearly be the position as a result of the Court
\nhaving\tdeclared  relevant  provisions of the U.P.   Act  as
\nbeing  ultra  vires insofar as it enables the imposition  of
\nexcise duty on industrial alcohol.\n<\/p>\n
    Furthermore\t in  view of the enunciation of the  law  by
\nthis  Court  in Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.  case (supra), a\tbank
\nguarantee  which is furnished cannot be regarded as  payment
\nof  excise levy which the Government is entitled to  retain.
\nThe  furnishing\t of a bank guarantee is ordered normally  in
\norder  to  ensure collection of dues.  Where,  however,\t the
\nState,\tas  in\tthe present case, has been held\t not  to  be
\nentitled  to collect or realise vend fee after 25th October,
\n1989  it cannot be allowed to invoke the bank guarantee\t and
\nrealise\t the  amount  of  vend fee.   What  cannot  be\tdone
\ndirectly  cannot  be done indirectly either.  Furnishing  of
\nbank  guarantee is only a promise by the bank to pay to\t the
\nbeneficiary the amount under certain circumstances contained
\nin  the bank guarantee.\t Furnishing of bank guarantee cannot
\ntantamount  to\tmaking of payment as it was to avoid  making
\npayment\t of  the vend fee that bank guarantees were  issued.
\nThe  respondents, in other words, are not entitled to encash
\nthe  bank guarantees and realise vend fee in respect of\t the
\nperiod prior to 25th October, 1989.\n<\/p>\n
    It\tis  true  that the effect of a\tlegislation  without
\nlegislative  competence is that it is nonest.  [See:  Behram
\nKhurshed  Pesikaka  vs.\t  The State of Bombay<\/a> at  652,\t653,
\nR.M.D.\t Chamarbaugwalla  vs.\tThe Union of India<\/a>  at\t940,
\nM.P.V.\t Sundararamier\t&  Co.\t vs.  The  State  of  Andhra
\nPradesh & Another<\/a> (supra) at 1468 and Mahendra Lal Jaini vs.
\nThe State of Uttar Pradesh and Others<\/a> at 937-941.]<\/p>\n
    Nevertheless   a   law   enacted   without\t legislative
\ncompetence  remains  on\t the statute book till\ta  Court  of
\ncompetent  jurisdiction adjudicates thereon and declares  it
\nto  be\tvoid.  When the Court declares it to be void  it  is
\nonly  then  that  it can be said that it is nonest  for\t all
\npurposes.   In Synthetics and Chemicals case the  invalidity
\nof the provisions was a declaration under Article 141 of the
\nConstitution.\tIt  was for doing complete justice that\t the
\nCourt  in  exercise  of its jurisdiction under\tArticle\t 142
\nmoulded\t the  relief in such a way as to give effect to\t its
\ndeclaration  prospectively.   It is not possible  to  accept
\nthat  such an order of prospective overruling is contrary to
\nlaw.   An  invalid law has not been held to be\tvalid.\t All
\nthat  has happened is that the declaration of invalidity  of
\nthe  legislation  was directed to take effect from a  future
\ndate.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t principle  of prospective over-ruling is  too\twell
\nenshrined  in  our  jurisprudence for it  to  be  disturbed.
\nTherefore,  by\treason of the decision in second  Synthetics
\ncase   what   has  actually   happened\tis  collection\t and
\nnon-collection\tof  vend fee prior to 25th October, 1989  is
\nleft untouched.\t However, the Court in the second Synthetics
\ncase did not specifically deal with the question of deposits
\nmade  pursuant\tto interim orders of Courts.  The word\tused
\nthere  was realisation.\t It might have been arguable  that
\nthe deposits were not realisations in the sense the word
\nhas  been  used\t in  taxation statutes in  general  and\t the
\nU.P.Excise  Act,  1910 in particular.  However, the  interim
\norders passed by the High Court show that deposits were made
\nof vend fee and the purchase tax.  Although these deposits
\nwere  to be kept in a separate account, nevertheless in\t the
\ncircumstances  of  this case, it would be mere sophistry  to
\nhold  that  the monies so deposited were not  realisations
\nfor  the purposes of the U.P.  Excise Act.  Therefore,\twhat
\nwas  deposited by the appellants with the State would remain
\nwith  it notwithstanding, the interim orders which  required
\nthe  State to keep it in a separate account but, at the same
\ntime,  what  has not been collected by the State  cannot  be
\nrealised  by it, even in those cases where a bank  guarantee
\nhad been furnished.\n<\/p>\n
    Lastly,  while relying on Mafatlal Industries Ltd.\t and
\nOthers\tvs.   Union  of\t India and  Others<\/a>  ,  Shri  Dwivedi
\nsubmitted  that\t the appellants had realised the  amount  of
\nvend  fee  payable by taking that figure into account  while
\ndetermining  their  sale price and, therefore, the State  is
\nentitled to recover the same as it would otherwise result in
\nunjust enrichment to the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tMafatlals  case\t (supra) the  principle\t of  unjust
\nenrichment was invoked as refund was claimed even though the
\namount of excise duty paid had already been recovered.\tThis
\nprinciple  resulted in the court declining to order  refund.
\nThe  principle\tof unjust enrichment does not apply  in\t the
\npresent\t case,\tin  view of the direction  given  in  second
\nSynthetics case (supra) that no refund be given.  This is in
\nline  with  the\t principle of unjust enrichment.   But\tthat
\nprinciple cannot be extended to give a right to the State to
\nrecover\t or  realise  vend fee after the  statute  has\tbeen
\nstruck\tdown and it has been categorically stated that\tthe
\nrespondent  States  are restrained from enforcing  the\tsaid
\nlevy  any further..  The contention of the respondents\tin
\nthe  teeth of the aforesaid direction cannot, therefore,  be
\naccepted.   This  is  apart from the fact that there  is  no
\nfactual\t basis\ton  which this Court can conclude  that\t the
\nappellants  have in fact realised the amount of vend fee and
\nallowing  them\tto  retain it will result in  their  getting
\nenriched unjustly.\n<\/p>\n
    For\t the  aforesaid reasons, C.A.  No.  4093 of 1991  is
\nallowed.   Civil Appeal No.  2853 of 2001 is dismissed.\t  It
\nis  declared that the vend fee realised by the States is not
\nto  be refunded to the appellants and, at the same time, the
\nState  cannot  collect any vend fee for the period prior  to
\n25th  October,\t1989  or   thereafter  notwithstanding\tthat
\nnotices\t of  demand  may  have\t been  issued  or   recovery
\nproceeding initiated.  Parties to bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
    C.A.   Nos.\t 324 of 1981, 455, 2795, 1604 of 1980,\t624,
\n625,  125, 2049 of 1981, C.A.  Nos.  1122, 181 of 1981,\t SLP
\n(C)  Nos.  4181, 4297-4298 of 1980, C.A.  Nos.\t215, 341  of
\n1981,  T.C.   Nos.  37-39 of 1989, C.A.\t Nos.  2777 of\t1981
\nand 1607 of 1980<\/p>\n
    In\tthese  appeals apart from the points decided by\t the
\njudgment in Somaiyas case (Civil Appeal No.  4093 of 1991),
\none  of the issues which arises pertains to the validity  of
\nthe  export pass fee sought to be levied and realised by the
\nState.\t Counsel  for the parties agree that this and  other
\nissues,\t not covered by the judgment in Somaiyas case,\tcan
\nnow be decided by an appropriate Bench.\n<\/p>\n
I.A. Nos. 1 & 3 in W.P (C) No. 1892 of 1973<\/p>\n
I.A. Nos. 1 and 3 in W.P (C) No. 1892 are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
      .J.  ] [ B.N.  Kirpal@@
\n\t\t       IIIIIIIIIIIIII<\/p>\n
    .J.\t [Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri]<\/p>\n
    .J.\t [ M.B.\t Shah ]<\/p>\n
    .J.\t  [K.G.Balakrishnan ]<\/p>\n
    April 17, 2001<\/p>\n
  (1990) 1 SCC 109
\n  (1980) 2 SCC 441
\n  (1994) 4 SCC 149
\n  1958 SCR 1422
\n  (1998) 4 SCC 409
\n  [1967] 2 SCR 762
\n  (1994) 2 SCC 546
\n  (1990) 1 SCC 12
\n   1991 Supp (1) SCC 430
\n  (1991) 1 SCC 588
\n  (1993) 4 SCC 727
\n  (1969) 3 SCC 468<\/p>\n
  (1997) 5 SCC 201
\n  (1972) 2 SCC 560
\n  (1999) 9 SCC 620
\n  [1955] 1 SCR 613<\/p>\n
  [1957] SCR 930<\/p>\n
  [1963] Supp. 1 SCR 912
\n  (1997) 5 SCC 536
\n2<\/span><\/p>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M\/S Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. … vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr on 17 April, 2001 Author: Kirpal Bench: B.N. Kirpal, Syed Shah Quadri, M.B. Shah, K.G. Balakrishnan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4093 of 1991 PETITIONER: M\/S SOMAIYA ORGANICS (INDIA) LTD. & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11498","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr on 17 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-somaiya-organics-india-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-17-april-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr on 17 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-somaiya-organics-india-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-17-april-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2001-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-11T18:36:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"37 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-somaiya-organics-india-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-17-april-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-somaiya-organics-india-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-17-april-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. … vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr on 17 April, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-11T18:36:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-somaiya-organics-india-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-17-april-2001\"},\"wordCount\":7325,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-somaiya-organics-india-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-17-april-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-somaiya-organics-india-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-17-april-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-somaiya-organics-india-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-17-april-2001\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr on 17 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-11T18:36:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-somaiya-organics-india-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-17-april-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-somaiya-organics-india-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-17-april-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-somaiya-organics-india-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-17-april-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. … vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr on 17 April, 2001\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr on 17 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-somaiya-organics-india-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-17-april-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr on 17 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-somaiya-organics-india-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-17-april-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-11T18:36:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"37 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-somaiya-organics-india-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-17-april-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-somaiya-organics-india-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-17-april-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. … vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr on 17 April, 2001","datePublished":"2001-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-11T18:36:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-somaiya-organics-india-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-17-april-2001"},"wordCount":7325,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-somaiya-organics-india-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-17-april-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-somaiya-organics-india-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-17-april-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-somaiya-organics-india-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-17-april-2001","name":"M\/S Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr on 17 April, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-11T18:36:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-somaiya-organics-india-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-17-april-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-somaiya-organics-india-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-17-april-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-somaiya-organics-india-ltd-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-17-april-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. … vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr on 17 April, 2001"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11498","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11498"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11498\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11498"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11498"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11498"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}