Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. These are the core issues agitated by the respective petitioners. In addition, the grievance of the petitioners other than Associated Cement Company Limited (in short "ACC Limited"), is that, the Authorities cannot apply the conversion factor of 1.6:1 qua them relying on the decision in ACC's case. For, that decision was not binding on them and also it cannot be cited as a binding precedent.

5. As regards ACC Limited, it is urged that the decision in earlier proceedings was in respect of different assessment period and, more so, because in the present proceedings, the challenge is essentially to the impugned Circulars. The impugned Circular has been issued by the State Government after culmination of earlier round of proceedings, bearing M.P. No.1225/1993. In other words, it is open even to ACC Limited to challenge the said Circulars which have been made the basis for assessment for the subsequent assessment period.

(emphasis supplied)

14. Although ACC Limited had installed Weighing Machine, but, according to the Authorities, it was not possible for them to manufacture cement on the basis of consumption of Limestone shown by them. For that reason, the Appropriate Authority issued demand towards royalty amount on the basis of conversion factor of 1.6:1. Being aggrieved by the said demand, ACC Limited filed writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition No.516/1996. That writ petition was heard along with other companion petitions, in all 17 petitions, by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge on the basis of rival submissions formulated 13 points for consideration as under:

(x) On the above analysis, all the writ petitions came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge which decision is the subject matter of challenge before us by way of writ appeals.

23. Having considered the rival submissions, in our opinion, the following broad points arise for consideration:

i. Whether the decision in ACC Limited would operate as res judicata qua ACC Limited? ii. Whether the said decision is a binding precedent? iii. What is the purport of the impugned Circulars dated 19/12/1992 and 11/8/1993 respectively? iv. Whether the said Circulars provide for the mode of assessment of royalty or otherwise? v. Whether the State Government has power to prescribe such mode of assessment of royalty for the mineral removed and consumed?

54. The question as to whether the earlier decision in the case of ACC Limited in the earlier proceeding would operate as res judicata qua ACC Limited is concerned, even this will have to be answered against the Department. Inasmuch as, the decision of the Tribunal against ACC Limited, as upheld by the High Court, was because the said Company had not installed Weighbridges. However, after the decision went against the Company, the Company took steps to install Weighbridges and informed the Authorities in that behalf. The decision in the previous proceedings by the Tribunal dated 10th April, 1992, and of the High Court dated 28th June, 1993, will govern the period anterior to the installation of Weighbridges by ACC. Notably, the period of assessment which is the subject matter of this proceeding, is different. Further, the assessment will have to be done on the basis of changed situation of installation of Weighbridges by the Company. Besides, the Company in the present proceedings has challenged the Circular issued after the decision of the High Court dated 11th August, 1993. The challenge to that Circular was not and could not have been made subject matter of earlier proceedings. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, ACC Limited cannot be non-suited on the ground of res judicata, as is contended.