Janapada Sabha, Chhindwara Etc Vs. The Central Provinces Syndicate Ltd. And Anr.Etc
and that in any event the Act did not validate the levy of coal cess which had been imposed under the three notifications. Pandey, J., expressed a contrary view. He held that the provisions of Sec. 3 of Act 18 of 1964 were not invalid, "nor were they ineffective". The petitions were then referred to Shiv Dayal, J. The learned Judge agreed with Dixit, C. J., and held that Act 13 of 1964 "did not give legal effect to the imposition of cess at the rate of 4 pies, 7 pies or 9 pies per ton under the notifications issued by the Independent Mining Local Board nor to anything done in pursuance of those notifications.8. The preamble of the Act states that it is "An Act to validate the imposition and collection of cess on coal by certain local authorities". Act 18 of 1964 is a taxing statute which purports to rectify the defects pointed out by this Court. This Court declared invalid the levy of cess by the Independent Mining Local Board, Chhindwara, at a rate exceeding three pies per ton. If the Act does not by the plain language used therein carry out the object, the Court will not be justified in supplying deficiencies in the Act. As observed by Rowlatt, J. in Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Commrs. of Inland Revenue, (1921) 12 Tax Cas 358:"In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used."These observations were approved by the House of Lords in Canadian Eagle oil Co., Ltd. v. King, (l946) 27 Tax Cas 206. This Court has also adopted the same rule in Cammr of Income-tax v. Ajax Products Ltd., 55 ITR 741 = (AIR 1965 SC 1358 ) and Commr. Of Income-tax v. B. M. Kharwar, (1969) 1 SCR 651 = (AIR 1969 SC 812 ).9. The relevant words which purport to validate the imposition assessment and collection of cess on coal may be recalled: they are "cesses imposed, assessed or collected by the Board in pursuance of the notifications/notices specified in the Schedule shall, for all purposes, be deemed to be, and to have always been validly imposed, assessed or collected as if the enactment under which they were so issued stood amended at all material times so as to empower the Board to issue the said notifications/notices". Thereby the enactments, i. e. Act 4 of 1920 and the Rules framed under the Act pursuant to which the notifications and notices were issued, must be deemed to have been amended by the Act. But the Act does not set out the amendments intended to be made in the enactments. Act 18 of 1964 is a piece of clumsy drafting. By a fiction it deems the Act of 1920 and the rules framed thereunder to have been amended without disclosing the text or even the nature of the amendments.10. Mr. B. Sen appearing on behalf of the Sabha contended that the intention of the Legislature was to repeal with retrospective effect sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 51 of Act 4 of 1920. By Sec. 51 of Act 4 of 1920 it was provided:"(1) Subject to the provisions of any law or enactment for the time being in force, a District Council may, by a resolution passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present at a special meeting convened for the purpose, impose any tax, toll or rate * * *(2) The first imposition of any tax, toll or rate under sub-section (1) Shall be subject to the previous sanction of the Provincial Government.* * * * ** * * * *11. But the Act in terms is limited in its application to the Independent Mining Local Board, Chhindwara, and its successor body the Janapada Sabha Chhindwara constituted under Act 38 of 1948, and only in respect of the three notifications specified in the Schedule. Obviously the Act limited to one local Board in its application and to certain specific notifications cannot operate to repeal the clause insofar as it applied to other Boards.12. The nature of the amendment made in Act 4 of 1920 has not been indicated. Nor is there anything which enacts that the notifications issued without the sanction of the State Government must be deemed to have been issued validly under Sec. 51 (2) without the sanction of the Local Government. On the words used in the Act, it is plain that the Legislature attempted to overrule or set aside the decision of this Court. That, in our Judgment, is not open to the Legislature to do under our constitutional scheme. It is open to the Legislature within certain limits to amend the provisions of an Act retrospectively and to declare what the law shall be deemed to have been, but it is not open to the Legislature to say that a judgment of a Court properly constituted and rendered in exercise of its powers in a matter brought before it shall be deemed to be ineffective and the interpretation of the law shall be otherwise than as declared by the Court.13. This Court in Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd.s case, 1963 Supp (1) SCR 172 = (AIR 1964 SC 1013 ), held that the cess was not validly imposed and levied because the sanction of the State Government was not obtained at the time of enhancing the rate of levy of tax. That judgment was binding between the parties and also by virtue of Article 141 binding on all Courts in the territory of India. The Legislature could not say that declaration of law was either erroneous, invalid or ineffective either as a precedent or between the parties.14. It is unnecessary then to consider whether the repealed Act may be amended without re-enactment.15.
0[ds]The nature of the amendment made in Act 4 of 1920 has not been indicated. Nor is there anything which enacts that the notifications issued without the sanction of the State Government must be deemed to have been issued validly under Sec. 51 (2) without the sanction of the Local Government. On the words used in the Act, it is plain that the Legislature attempted to overrule or set aside the decision of this Court. That, in our Judgment, is not open to the Legislature to do under our constitutional scheme. It is open to the Legislature within certain limits to amend the provisions of an Act retrospectively and to declare what the law shall be deemed to have been, but it is not open to the Legislature to say that a judgment of a Court properly constituted and rendered in exercise of its powers in a matter brought before it shall be deemed to be ineffective and the interpretation of the law shall be otherwise than as declared by the Court.This Court in Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd.s case, 1963 Supp (1) SCR 172 = (AIR 1964 SC 1013  ), held that the cess was not validly imposed and levied because the sanction of the State Government was not obtained at the time of enhancing the rate of levy of tax. That judgment was binding between the parties and also by virtue of Article 141 binding on all Courts in the territory of India. The Legislature could not say that declaration of law was either erroneous, invalid or ineffective either as a precedent or between the parties.It is unnecessary then to consider whether the repealed Act may be amended without re-enactment.
### Instruction:
First, predict whether the appeal in case proceeding will be accepted (1) or not (0), and then explain the decision by identifying crucial sentences from the document.

### Input:
and that in any event the Act did not validate the levy of coal cess which had been imposed under the three notifications. Pandey, J., expressed a contrary view. He held that the provisions of Sec. 3 of Act 18 of 1964 were not invalid, "nor were they ineffective". The petitions were then referred to Shiv Dayal, J. The learned Judge agreed with Dixit, C. J., and held that Act 13 of 1964 "did not give legal effect to the imposition of cess at the rate of 4 pies, 7 pies or 9 pies per ton under the notifications issued by the Independent Mining Local Board nor to anything done in pursuance of those notifications.8. The preamble of the Act states that it is "An Act to validate the imposition and collection of cess on coal by certain local authorities". Act 18 of 1964 is a taxing statute which purports to rectify the defects pointed out by this Court. This Court declared invalid the levy of cess by the Independent Mining Local Board, Chhindwara, at a rate exceeding three pies per ton. If the Act does not by the plain language used therein carry out the object, the Court will not be justified in supplying deficiencies in the Act. As observed by Rowlatt, J. in Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Commrs. of Inland Revenue, (1921) 12 Tax Cas 358:"In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used."These observations were approved by the House of Lords in Canadian Eagle oil Co., Ltd. v. King, (l946) 27 Tax Cas 206. This Court has also adopted the same rule in Cammr of Income-tax v. Ajax Products Ltd., 55 ITR 741 = (AIR 1965 SC 1358 ) and Commr. Of Income-tax v. B. M. Kharwar, (1969) 1 SCR 651 = (AIR 1969 SC 812 ).9. The relevant words which purport to validate the imposition assessment and collection of cess on coal may be recalled: they are "cesses imposed, assessed or collected by the Board in pursuance of the notifications/notices specified in the Schedule shall, for all purposes, be deemed to be, and to have always been validly imposed, assessed or collected as if the enactment under which they were so issued stood amended at all material times so as to empower the Board to issue the said notifications/notices". Thereby the enactments, i. e. Act 4 of 1920 and the Rules framed under the Act pursuant to which the notifications and notices were issued, must be deemed to have been amended by the Act. But the Act does not set out the amendments intended to be made in the enactments. Act 18 of 1964 is a piece of clumsy drafting. By a fiction it deems the Act of 1920 and the rules framed thereunder to have been amended without disclosing the text or even the nature of the amendments.10. Mr. B. Sen appearing on behalf of the Sabha contended that the intention of the Legislature was to repeal with retrospective effect sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 51 of Act 4 of 1920. By Sec. 51 of Act 4 of 1920 it was provided:"(1) Subject to the provisions of any law or enactment for the time being in force, a District Council may, by a resolution passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present at a special meeting convened for the purpose, impose any tax, toll or rate * * *(2) The first imposition of any tax, toll or rate under sub-section (1) Shall be subject to the previous sanction of the Provincial Government.* * * * ** * * * *11. But the Act in terms is limited in its application to the Independent Mining Local Board, Chhindwara, and its successor body the Janapada Sabha Chhindwara constituted under Act 38 of 1948, and only in respect of the three notifications specified in the Schedule. Obviously the Act limited to one local Board in its application and to certain specific notifications cannot operate to repeal the clause insofar as it applied to other Boards.12. The nature of the amendment made in Act 4 of 1920 has not been indicated. Nor is there anything which enacts that the notifications issued without the sanction of the State Government must be deemed to have been issued validly under Sec. 51 (2) without the sanction of the Local Government. On the words used in the Act, it is plain that the Legislature attempted to overrule or set aside the decision of this Court. That, in our Judgment, is not open to the Legislature to do under our constitutional scheme. It is open to the Legislature within certain limits to amend the provisions of an Act retrospectively and to declare what the law shall be deemed to have been, but it is not open to the Legislature to say that a judgment of a Court properly constituted and rendered in exercise of its powers in a matter brought before it shall be deemed to be ineffective and the interpretation of the law shall be otherwise than as declared by the Court.13. This Court in Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd.s case, 1963 Supp (1) SCR 172 = (AIR 1964 SC 1013 ), held that the cess was not validly imposed and levied because the sanction of the State Government was not obtained at the time of enhancing the rate of levy of tax. That judgment was binding between the parties and also by virtue of Article 141 binding on all Courts in the territory of India. The Legislature could not say that declaration of law was either erroneous, invalid or ineffective either as a precedent or between the parties.14. It is unnecessary then to consider whether the repealed Act may be amended without re-enactment.15.

### Response:
0

### Explanation:
The nature of the amendment made in Act 4 of 1920 has not been indicated. Nor is there anything which enacts that the notifications issued without the sanction of the State Government must be deemed to have been issued validly under Sec. 51 (2) without the sanction of the Local Government. On the words used in the Act, it is plain that the Legislature attempted to overrule or set aside the decision of this Court. That, in our Judgment, is not open to the Legislature to do under our constitutional scheme. It is open to the Legislature within certain limits to amend the provisions of an Act retrospectively and to declare what the law shall be deemed to have been, but it is not open to the Legislature to say that a judgment of a Court properly constituted and rendered in exercise of its powers in a matter brought before it shall be deemed to be ineffective and the interpretation of the law shall be otherwise than as declared by the Court.This Court in Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd.s case, 1963 Supp (1) SCR 172 = (AIR 1964 SC 1013  ), held that the cess was not validly imposed and levied because the sanction of the State Government was not obtained at the time of enhancing the rate of levy of tax. That judgment was binding between the parties and also by virtue of Article 141 binding on all Courts in the territory of India. The Legislature could not say that declaration of law was either erroneous, invalid or ineffective either as a precedent or between the parties.It is unnecessary then to consider whether the repealed Act may be amended without re-enactment.
