JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by Rohinton Fali Nariman J.-An interesting question is raised in this appeal which arises out of two judgments of this court, namely, Buxa Dooars Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal [1989] 3 SCC 211 and Goodricke Group Ltd. v. State of West Bengal [1995] Supp. (1) SCC 707. In present appeal, we are concerned with West Bengal Rural Employment and Production Act, 1976, and West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973. High Court has found, based on reading of interim orders passed in both Buxa Dooars Tea Co. Ltd.'s case [1989] 3 SCC 211 and Goodricke Group Ltd.'s case [1995] Supp. (1) SCC 707, that for period prior to Amendment Act of 1989, respondent herein [1989] 179 ITR 91 (SC); [1989] 74 STC 447 (SC). [1995] 98 STC 32 (SC). is entitled to refund of cess paid by it together with interest at 12 per cent. per annum and has further found that in so far as interest is payable after Amendment Act is concerned, such interest would only be payable after assessment orders are passed (which on facts here, we are informed, were passed on July 27, 1993 and thereafter). By interim order dated June 16, 1983, in Buxa Dooars Tea Co. Ltd.'s case, this court held as hereunder: "Rule nisi. There will be no order on stay application but if petitioner succeeds in writ petition, State of West Bengal will refund amount of cess collected with interest thereon at 12 per cent. per annum from date of collection." By judgment delivered in Buxa Dooars Tea Co. Ltd.'s case [1989] 3 SCC 211 in 1989, this court held that charging sections under both aforesaid Acts were invalid both on ground of legislative competence as well as violation of article 301 inasmuch as impugned legislative measures were outside entry 49 in List II of Seventh Schedule to Constitution, which speaks of "taxes of lands and buildings"; and it was further held that levy being on movement of goods, article 301 of Constitution would be attracted and these levies are not saved under article 304(b) as no Presidential assent has been taken on either of these legislative measures. West Bengal Legislature was swift to act after judgment of this court. By West Bengal Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act of 1989 amending provisions of both aforesaid Acts, charging sections were substituted with retrospective effect, and levy of rural employment cess and education cess (which was levied under earlier principal Acts on basis of despatch of manufactured tea) was now levied on basis of production of tea leaves. challenge to this Amendment Act was made before this court which challenge failed in second judgment referred to hereinabove (in Goodricke Group Ltd.'s case [1995] Supp. (1) SCC 707). 1989 Amendment Act was upheld in following terms: "Lastly, learned counsel for petitioners questioned validity of retrospective effect given to impugned enactment. We fail to see any substance in this submission. If Act is good, it is good both prospectively and retrospectively. Retrospective effect is given for period covered by anterior provisions which were [1989] 179 ITR 91 (SC); [1989] 74 STC 447 (SC). [1995] 98 STC 32 (SC). Page 66 of 98 STC. struck down in Buxa Dooars [1989] 3 SCC 211. Once we hold that defect pointed out in Buxa Dooars [1989] 3 SCC 211 is rectified and remedied in impugned enactment, it can certainly be given retrospective effect to cover period covered by earlier enactment which is not only well-known but frequently adopted measure by all Legislatures. For above reasons, writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. interim orders made in these writ petitions shall also come to end. petitioners shall pay cesses stayed by orders of this court along with interest at 12 per cent. per annum. There shall be no order as to costs." It is little important to note that before final judgment in Goodricke Group Ltd.'s case, interim order was passed dated January 25, 1990, in following terms: "Issue notice. In meantime assessment may be made as usual but there will be no enforcement of demand under Act or Rules. Status quo to be maintained as far as refund of cess is concerned." learned counsel for appellant, Shri Anip Sachthey, has argued before us that impugned judgment should be set aside on ground that interim order dated June 16, 1983, in Buxa Dooars Tea Co. Ltd.'s case did not survive as it was substituted by final order in Buxa Dooars Tea Co. Ltd.'s case [1989] 3 SCC 211, which is to be found in paragraph 16 thereof, which stated that two West Bengal Acts were declared void and consequential refund ordered. There was no separate order as to payment of interest in final judgment and, therefore, interim order which merges with final judgment had no independent existence. He has also urged that since two West Bengal Acts were amended in 1989 with retrospective effect from 1981 and 1984, respectively, basis of judgment in Buxa Dooars Tea Co. Ltd.'s case [1989] 3 SCC 211 was removed and as result, it is clear that no refund at all is payable. Mr. C. U. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent, on other hand, supported judgment on both counts and submitted that levy under original Act no longer remained same, so that levy under 1989 amendment was separate and new levy of rural employment cess and education cess and this being position, interim order as well as final judgment in Buxa Dooars Tea Co. Ltd.'s case [1989] 3 SCC 211 still remain intact. He further submitted [1989] 179 ITR 91 (SC); [1989] 74 STC 447 (SC). [1995] 98 STC 32 (SC). that interim order was self-operative inasmuch as interest became payable at rate of 12 per cent. moment writ petitions were finally decided in petitioner's favour. He also supported second portion of impugned judgment saying that final order in Goodricke Group Ltd.'s case [1995] Supp. (1) SCC 707 is to be read with interim order thereof and if so read, result is that interest is only payable under new Act with effect from date of assessment and not before. We have heard learned counsel for parties. In our opinion, Mr. C. U. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, is right in saying that interim order dated June 16, 1983, is self-operative. In any case, final order in Buxa Dooars Tea Co. Ltd.'s case [1989] 3 SCC 211 did not say anything to contrary, and when both judgment and interim order are read together, it is clear that refund will have to be made together with 12 per cent. interest. But matter does not end here. Amendment Act contains two very important provisions, namely, section 4B of West Bengal Rural Employment and Production Act and section 78C of West Bengal Primary Education Act. Both sections are set out hereinbelow: "4B. (1) Where any sum has been paid by, or collected from, any owner of tea estate during period commencing on 1st day of April, 1981 and ending on day immediately preceding date of coming into force of West Bengal Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 1989 as rural employment cess in respect of any period prior to coming into force of said Act, such portion of said sum as may become payable in accordance with provisions of this Act after coming into force of said Act shall, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court, be deemed to have been validly levied, paid or collected under this Act, and where after assessment or fresh assessment any portion of such sum is found to have been levied, paid or collected in excess of rural employment cess payable for said period shall be refunded to such owner in accordance with provisions of this Act and Rules made thereunder. (2) Where any assessment is purported to have been made, or any order is purported to have been passed on appeal, revision or review, by any authority, or any appeal or application for revision or review has been made before such authority under this Act, or any order has been passed by court or where any sum has been paid or [1995] 98 STC 32 (SC). [1989] 179 ITR 91 (SC); [1989] 74 STC 447 (SC). collected as rural employment cess, before coming into force of West Bengal Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 1989, in respect of any period prior to coming into force of said Act, assessment or fresh assessment shall, notwithstanding such order on appeal, revision or review, or pendency of such appeal or application for revision or review, or any order passed by court, be made in accordance with provisions of this Act within four years from date of coming into force of said Act. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any default by owner of tea estate to make payment of rural employment cess or to apply for registration or to file return in accordance with provisions of this Act after coming into force of West Bengal Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 1989, in respect of any period prior to coming into force of said Act shall not be deemed to be contravention of such provisions if such owner makes payment of such rural employment cess within one month or files return within six months, as case may be, from date of coming into force of said Act. (4) amount of rural employment cess payable by any owner of tea estate under sub-section (2A) of section 4 of this Act in respect of any period prior to coming into force of West Bengal Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 1989, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, be reduced by such amount of rural employment cess payable in respect of such tea estate or such quantity of green tea leaves produced therein during said period as may be equivalent to quantity of any tea despatched for which such owner has purported to have enjoyed or would have enjoyed exemption from payment of rural employment cess during such period, and it is hereby declared that for determining amount of rural employment cess to be reduced, each kilogram of tea despatched during such period shall be equivalent to four and half kilograms of green tea leaves produced in such tea estate. 78C. Validation and exemption.-(1) Where any sum has been paid by, or collected from, any owner of tea estate during period commencing on 14th day of April, 1984, and ending on day immediately preceding date of coming into force of West Bengal Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 1989, as education cess in respect of any period prior to coming into force of said Act, such portion of said sum as may become payable in accordance with provisions of this Act after coming into force of said Act shall be deemed to have been validly levied, paid or collected under this Act, and where after assessment any portion of such sum is found to have been levied, paid or collected in excess of amount payable as education cess for said period shall be refunded to such owner in accordance with provisions of this Act and Rules made thereunder. (2) Where any assessment is purported to have been made, or any order is purported to have been passed on appeal, revision or review, by any authority, or any appeal or application for revision or review has been made before such authority under this Act, or any order has been passed by court, or where any sum has been paid or collected as education cess, before coming into force of West Bengal Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 1989, in respect of any period prior to coming into force of said Act, assessment or fresh assessment shall, notwithstanding such order on appeal, revision or review or pendency of such appeal or application for revision or review or any order passed by any court, be made in accordance with provisions of this Act within four years from date of coming into force of said Act. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any default by owner of tea estate to make payment of education cess or to apply for registration or to file return in accordance with provisions of this Act after coming into force of West Bengal Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 1989, in respect of any period prior to coming into force of said Act shall not be deemed to be contravention of such provisions if such owner makes payment of such education cess within three months or applies for registration within one month or files return within six months, as case may be, from date of coming into force of said Act. (4) amount of education cess payable by any owner of tea estate under sub-section (2A) of section 78 of this Act in respect of any period prior to coming into force of West Bengal Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 1989, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, be reduced by such amount of education cess payable in respect of such tea estate on such quantity of green tea leaves produced therein during said period as may be equivalent to quantity of any tea despatched for which such owner has purported to have enjoyed or would have enjoyed exemption from payment of education cess during such period, and it is hereby declared that for determining amount of education cess to be reduced, each kilogram of tea despatched during such period shall be equivalent to four and half kilograms of green tea leaves produced in such tea estate. (5) provisions of this section shall have effect, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority to contrary." It is clear from reading of sections 4B and 78C that where any sum is paid by or collected from owner of tea estate during period commencing from April 1, 1981, or April 14, 1984, as case may be, up to date of Amendment Act as rural employment cess or as education cess, such portion of said sum as may become payable under provisions of Amendment Act shall, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court, be deemed to have been validly levied, paid or collected under Amendment Act. In our view, purport of these two sections is clear. Whatever may have been subject-matter of Buxa Dooars Tea Co. Ltd.'s case [1989] 3 SCC 211, that is subject-matter of two Acts as originally enacted, will now, notwithstanding interim order or final judgment in Buxa Dooars Tea Co. Ltd.'s case [1989] 3 SCC 211, be deemed to have been validly levied, collected and paid as rural employment cess and education cess under Amendment Act. This being case, it is clear that section 4B and section 78C have changed basis of law as it existed when Buxa Dooars Tea Co. Ltd.'s case [1989] 3 SCC 211 was decided and consequentially, judgment and interim order passed in Buxa Dooars Tea Co. Ltd.'s case [1989] 3 SCC 211 will cease to have any effect. Also, what would have been payable under Act as unamended, is now payable only under 1989 Amendment Act which has come into force with retrospective effect. Mr. C. U. Singh, however, referred us to Madan Mohan Pathak v. Union of India [1978] 3 SCR 334 and in particular to Justice P. N. Bhagwati's judgment thereof, in which it has been decided by this court that legislative Act cannot directly undo writ of mandamus that is granted by order of superior court. We are of view that Madan Mohan Pathak's case [1978] 3 SCR 334 would not apply to facts in present case for simple reason that what has been undone by section 4B and section 78C is not mandamus issued by superior court. What is undone is very basis of judgment in Buxa Dooars Tea Co. Ltd.'s case [1989] 3 SCC 211 by retrospectively changing levy of rural employment cess and [1989] 179 ITR 91 (SC); [1989] 74 STC 447 (SC). education cess. It must be understood that rural employment cess and education cess continue to be same cess whether before or after Amendment Act. What has been changed is basis for said levy so as to undo defects that were found in Buxa Dooars Tea Co. Ltd.'s case [1989] 3 SCC 211 judgment. It is obvious that when basis of Buxa Dooars Tea Co. Ltd.'s case [1989] 3 SCC 211 has gone, on retrospective amendment of these two Acts, interim order and judgment and order in Buxa Dooars Tea Co. Ltd.'s case [1989] 3 SCC 211 can no longer survive. For this reason, we are of view that impugned judgment needs to be set aside on this score. In fact, Madan Mohan Pathak's case [1978] 3 SCR 334 has been explained in Indian Aluminium Co. v. State of Kerala [1996] 7 SCC 637 as follows: "49. In Madan Mohan Pathak v. Union of India [1978] 2 SCC 50; [1978] SCC (L&S) 103, on basis of settlement, bonus became payable by LIC to its class III and class IV employees. In writ, single Judge of Calcutta High Court issued mandamus directing payment of bonus as provided in settlement. During pendency of letters patent appeal, LIC (Modification of Settlements) Act, 1976, was enacted denying bonus payable to employees. appeal was withdrawn. validity of 1976 Act was challenged in this court under article 32 of Constitution. Bench of seven Judges had held that Parliament was not aware of mandamus issued by court and it was declared that 1976 Act was void and writ of mandamus was issued to obey mandamus by implementing or enforcing provisions of that Act and mandamus by implementing or enforcing provisions of that Act and directed payment of bonus in terms of settlement. It was pointed out that there was no reference to judgment of High Court in Statement of Objects and Reasons, nor any non obstante clause referring to judgment of court was made in section 3 of Act. Attention of Parliament was not drawn to mandamus issued by High Court. When mandamus issued by High Court became final, 1976 Act was held invalid. Shri R. F. Nariman laid special emphasis on observations of learned Chief Justice Beg who in separate judgment had pointed out that basis of mandamus issued by court could not be taken away by indirect fashion as observed at p. 743, c to f. From observations made by Bhagwati, J. per majority, it is clear that this court did not intend to lay down that Parliament, under no circumstance, has power to amend law removing vice pointed out by court. Equally, observation of Chief Justice Beg is to be [1989] 179 ITR 91 (SC); [1989] 74 STC 447 (SC). understood in context that as long as effect of mandamus issued by court is not legally and constitutionally made ineffective, State is bound to obey directions. Thus understood, it is unexceptionable. But it does not mean that learned Chief Justice intended to lay down law that mandamus issued by court cannot at all be made ineffective by valid law made by Legislature, removing defect pointed out by court." This statement of law has been accepted in yet another judgment of this court (See: State of Kerala v. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, Kerala State Unit [2009] 8 SCC 46, at paragraph 65). Bhagwati J.'s judgment in Madan Mohan Pathak [1978] 2 SCC 50; [1978] SCC (L&S) 103 also makes it clear that section 3 of impugned Act in that case sought to modify settlement dated January 24, 1974, arrived at between LIC and its employees. There was no reference to mandamus issued by Calcutta High Court in Statement of Objects and Reasons as result of which section 3 of impugned Act did not contain non obstante clause referring to any judgment of any court. right given under said judgment was, therefore, not sought to be taken away by impugned Act. Further, inexplicably, letters patent appeal filed by LIC was not pressed as otherwise section 3 of impugned Act would only have to be applied to facts in that case to upset single judge judgment that had issued writ of mandamus. Bhagwati J. also went on to state that judgment given by Calcutta High Court was not mere declaratory judgment holding impost or tax to be invalid, so that validation statute can remove defect pointed out by judgment and amend law with retrospective effect to validate such impost or tax-See Madan Mohan Pathak v. Union of India [1978] 3 SCR 334 at 352 to 355. In present case, 1989 Amendment Act expressly seeks to remove basis of Buxa Dooars's judgment [1989] 3 SCC 211 by retrospectively changing basis of levy of cesses mentioned above. In present case, what is done away with by Amending Act of 1989 is declaratory judgment holding above cesses to be invalid. On all these grounds also judgment in Madan Mohan Pathak's case [1978] 2 SCC 50; [1978] SCC (L&S) 103 is distinguishable. However, in so far as interest is concerned, post Goodricke Group Ltd.'s case [1995] Supp. (1) SCC 707, we are of view that Mr. C. U. Singh is correct in supporting impugned judgment. Goodricke Group Ltd.'s case [1989] 179 ITR 91 (SC); [1989] 74 STC 447 (SC). [1995] 98 STC 32 (SC). [1995] Supp. (1) SCC 707 made it clear that petitioners shall pay cesses stayed by order of this court along with interest at 12 per cent. per annum. expression "cesses stayed" has reference to interim order dated January 25, 1990, which had stated that there would be no enforcement of demand under Act or Rules and in meanwhile, assessment may be made. We have been informed that assessments were made with effect from July, 1993, onwards and consequential demands have been made with effect from 1995 onwards. It is clear, therefore, that impugned judgment is right in holding that with regard to payment of interest by petitioner on amount of cess payable by virtue of Goodricke Group Ltd.'s case [1995] Supp. (1) SCC 707, interest would only be payable from respective dates of assessment for various relevant periods till recovery. On facts here, no question arises as to whether interest would become payable from date of demand or from date of assessments inasmuch as counsel for respondents supports impugned judgment on this score and is not aggrieved thereby. respondents here have made payment of interest from time to time to State. These payments will be adjusted against any sum that would become payable as result of this judgment. appeal is disposed of accordingly. [1995] 98 STC 32 (SC). *** Agricultural Income-tax Officer v. Goodricke Group Ltd