14.08.
2024
Re. Civil Appeal. No. 4056-4064/1999
MINERAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ETC.
Vs.
M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA . AND ORS.
Dear Sir,
1. This is to inform and record that the captioned matter was for orders on Wednesday i.e.,
14.08.2024 in Court No. 1 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
presided by Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice D.Y Chandrachud, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh
Roy, Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka, Hon’ble Ms. Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Hon’ble Mr.
Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Mishra, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal
Bhuyan, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.G.
Masih.
2. As the matter was called out , The Hon’ble bench observed that “In Mineral Area
Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India, the nine-Judge Bench of this Court
answered the questions referred in terms of the conclusions arrived at by the majority. In
the process, the judgment overruled India Cement Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu2 and
subsequent decisions of this Court which relied on it. After the pronouncement of the
judgment, counsel for the assesses submitted that the judgment may be given prospective
effect. Therefore, the proceedings were listed for hearing submissions on whether or not
the judgment should be given prospective effect”.
3. Further, The Hon’ble bench held that the submission that MADA (supra) should be given
prospective effect is rejected and bearing in mind the consequences that would emanate
from the past period, the following conditionalities are directed to prevail:
a) While the States may levy or renew demands of tax, if any, pertaining to Entries 49
and 50 of List II of the Seventh Schedule in terms of the law laid down in the decision
in MADA (supra) the demand of tax shall not operate on transactions made prior to 1
April 2005;
b) The time for payment of the demand of tax shall be staggered in installments over a
period of twelve years commencing from 1 April 2026; and
c) The levy of interest and penalty on demands made for the period before 25 July 2024
shall stand waived for all the assesses.
4. The Hon’ble Chief Justice explained that the Court has taken the financial year after the
2004 judgment in State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries.
5. The Hon’ble Chief Justice also said that the present order will be signed by only 8
judges as Justice Nagarathna had dissented in the original judgment of July 25. In
response Mr. Rakesh Diwvedi stated that “silence means agreement” and further Justice
Nagarathna Responded that her silence was a reiteration of her dissent.
6. Further the Learner Counsel for both the sides requested to the Hon’ble bench to list the
matter as earliest possible since it is pending for a long time.
7. The Hon’ble Chief Justice opined that “All the Solicitor General can sit together and
give us the bifurcation of these matters and the Hon’ble chief justice will immediately
pass an order on administrative side for the earliest disposal.
Regards,
Yugal Jain
(Intern)
