ORDER : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Since common question of law and fact is involved in these two writ petitions, except the period of demand, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common order. W.P.(C)No.1691/2013 2. Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner herein seeks to challenge the order dated 2-9-2013 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Collector (Mining Department), Korba by which the petitioner SECL has been directed to pay an additional amount of ? 7,34,135-26 towards royalty. W.P.(C)No.1645/2013 3. Similarly, the petitioner seeks to challenge the orders dated 12-6-2013 (Annexure P-2) and 31-8-2013 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Collector (Mining Department), Korba by which the petitioner SECL has been directed to pay an additional amount of ?8,09,163-78 towards royalty. 4. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop: - [In order to decide the lis between the parties, facts of W.P.(C) No.1691/2013 are being taken as lead case.] 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner Company consequent to E-Auction, sold different crates of coal as elucidated in Annexure P-3 at the rate as reflected in the invoice/delivery order and royalty was paid taking the price “P” of the coal as reflected in the invoices in terms of the notification dated 1-8-2007 published and notified in the official Gazette by the Central Government in exercise of power conferred under sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, ‘the MMDR Act’). Accordingly, royalty was paid for the relevant years in question by the petitioner with the State calculating it based on the price of coal reflected in the invoices as provided in the formula in the Second Schedule of the MMDR Act, yet, on 22-5-2013, vide Annexure P-4, the Mining Officer of the Office of respondent No.2 issued notices to the petitioner that for the period from February, 2011 to December, 2011 and from January, 2012 to May, 2012, steam coal sold by SECL was less than the prescribed basic price, therefore, less royalty has been paid and clarification was sought with respect to forward auction and the reasons for depositing less royalty, which the petitioner replied that royalty has been paid in accordance with the price shown in the invoices. On 2-9-2013, the impugned order Annexure P-7 has been passed by the Office of the Collector (Mining Department) referring to the audit note by the CAG Chhattisgarh directing that the pithead valued which is one of the calculating mode for royalty has been notified vide notification dated 26-2-2011 and the invoices have been issued at a lesser price than notified and therefore additional demand of ?7,34,135-26 is payable to be deposited immediately or else, interest would be levied leading to filing of the instant writ petition. 6. Return has been filed on behalf of the State / respondents No.1 to 3 stating inter alia and relying upon the price notified on 26-2-2011 for ROM B grade at the rate of ?3,990/- by Coal India and it has further been contended that the entire exercise is based on the audit objection raised by respondent No.4. Further, additional affidavit has been filed justifying the levy of additional amount of royalty. 7. Respondent No.4 has also filed affidavit stating that no notification has been separately issued by the Ministry of Coal, Government of India under Section 9 (3) of the MMDR Act enhancing the rate at which royalty shall be payable for the period from April, 2011 to March, 2012 and it has also been mentioned that the audit findings are a recommendation and is still under consideration. 8. Rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the petitioner and further affidavit has also been filed by the parties which have been taken on record. 9. Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner SECL, would submit that the demand of extra royalty for the period from 1-4-2011 to 31-3-2012 is contrary to and beyond what is contained in the notification dated 1-8-2007 with respect to coal notified by the Central Government exercising powers conferred under sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the MMDR Act and therefore the demand of extra royalty is illegal, without jurisdiction and without authority of law, as the power to levy royalty in respect of coal, which is a major mineral, is governed by Section 9 of the MMDR Act and by virtue of Section 9 (3), it is only the power of the Central Government by notification in the official gazette to enhance or reduce the rate at which royalty shall be payable in respect of any mineral. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the Central Government by notification dated 1-8-2007 prescribed the rate/formula for calculation of royalty on coal which has already been paid for the period from 1-4-2011 to 31-3-2012 and the amount of royalty on coal has been arrived as per the formula indicated in the notification dated 1-8-2007 and only on the basis of internal circular dated 26-2-2011, as such, additional demand of royalty is without any statutory basis and backing of law and hence it is liable to be quashed. Furthermore, demand of additional royalty on coal is based on audit observation without appreciation of legal provisions which is arbitrary and illegal and hence it is liable to be set aside. As per the additional affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.4, the audit observation has not attained finality and only on the basis of notification issued under Section 9 (3) of the MMDR Act, rate of royalty can be enhanced by the Central Government and only on the basis of audit observation, rate of royalty cannot be enhanced, as such, the orders impugned Annexure P-7 in W.P.(C)No.1691/2013 and Annexures P-2 & P-4 in W.P.(C)No.1645/2013 deserve to be quashed. 10.Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State/respondents No.1, 2 & 3, would submit that the pithead price as notified by Coal India Limited on 26-2-2011 with respect to Bunki mines for ROM Grade B was ?3,990/- on the date of its removal after 27-2-2011, therefore, royalty should have been charged by the petitioner taking the basic pithead price as ?3,990/- only and not as per the price procured at the time of auction. The learned State counsel also referred to clause 6.3 of the E-Auction Scheme 2007 for forward E-Auction as filed by the petitioner. He would further submit that clause 6.3 provides that royalty shall be as applicable at the time of delivery and these charges shall be on the buyer’s account. He would finally submit that the petitioner has erred in law in charging royalty at a lower rate despite the fact that on the date of removal of coal, the prevalent basic pithead price was ?3,990/-, hence, issuance of the impugned demand notice and reminder is completely just and legal. He would finally submit that the petitioner has erred in law in charging royalty at a lower rate despite the fact that on the date of removal of coal, the prevalent basic pithead price was ?3,990/-, hence, issuance of the impugned demand notice and reminder is completely just and legal. He would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Tata Steel Limited v. Union of India and others , (2015) 6 SCC 193 11.In rejoinder, Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the word ‘invoice’ as used in the notification dated 1-8-2007 while defining the word ‘royalty’ would mean which is akin to a written contract, as such, on the basis of that royalty has to be paid, royalty cannot be calculated on the basis of notification dated 26-2-2011. He would rely upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the matter of Modern Construction Company Delhi v. Hitech Enterprises , 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5185 to buttress his submission. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record carefully and meticulously as well. 13.The dispute is with regard to the amount of royalty which the petitioner has paid to the respondent State. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has paid royalty in accordance with the price as reflected in the invoice for the relevant years in question. What is in dispute is, by notification dated 26-2-2011, pithead prices of all grades of coal has been revised by Coal India Limited with effect from 27-2-2011. In order to consider the dispute, it would be appropriate to notice Section 9 (3) of the MMDR Act profitably which empowers the Central Government to enhance or reduce the rate at which royalty shall be payable in respect of any mineral, in the present case, coal, which is the major mineral. Section 9 (3) of the MMDR Act states as under: - “ 9. Section 9 (3) of the MMDR Act states as under: - “ 9. Royalties in respect of mining leases .—xxx xxx (3) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Second Schedule so as to enhance or reduce the rate at which royalty shall be payable in respect of any mineral with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification: Provided that the Central Government shall not enhance the rate of royalty in respect of any mineral more than once during any period of three years.” 14. As such, by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the MMDR Act, the Central Government is empowered by notification in the Official Gazette to amend the Second Schedule so as to enhance or reduce the rate at which royalty shall be payable in respect of any mineral with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification. The Central Government by its notification dated 1-8-2007, amended the Schedule Schedule of the MMDR Act in exercise of its power under Section 9 (3) of the MMDR Act for item No.11, relevant portion of which states as under: - 2. In the said Schedule, for item 11 and the entries relating thereto, the following item and entries shall be substituted, namely :— 11. COAL: A. Coal produced in all States and Union territories except the State of West Bengal. (1) Royalty on Coal: The rates of royalty, which shall be a combination of specific and ad valorem rates of royalty which shall be as follows: R (Royalty Rupees/tonnes) = a +bP Where ‘P’ (price) shall mean basic pithead price of ROM (run-of-mine) coal and lignite as reflected in the invoice, excluding taxes, levies and other charges and the values of ‘a’ (fixed component) and ‘b’ (variable or ad-valorem component) would be as follows: Group Grade of Coal Royalty on coal in Rupees per tonne Group-I Steel Gr.-I Steel Gr.-II Washery-I Direct Feed a = Rs.180.00 b = 5 per cent i.e. Rs.180 + 5 per cent where ‘P’ (price) shall mean basic pithead price of ROM (run-of-mine) coal and lignite as reflected in the invoice, excluding taxes, levies and other charges. xxx xxx xxx xxx 15.A careful perusal of the aforesaid notification would show that the Central Government has laid down the formula for calculating royalty on coal which means that royalty includes a + bP, where ‘P’ (price) shall mean basic pithead price of ROM (run-of-mine) coal and lignite as reflected in the invoice, excluding taxes, levies and other charges and the values of ‘a’ (fixed component) and ‘b’ (variable or ad-valorem component) would be as prescribed in the notification. 16.As such, for Steel Grade-I, the amount of fixed component would be ?180/- per tonne and for Steel Grade-II, ad valorem component would be 5% of price reflected in the invoice. However, price means basic pithead price of ROM (run-of-mine) coal and lignite as reflected in the invoice, excluding taxes, levies and other charges. 17.At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the dictionary meaning of ‘invoice’ as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary 55 th Edn, which states as under: - “A written account, or itemized statement of merchandise shipped or sent to a purchaser, consignee, factor, etc. with the quantity, value or prices and charges annexed, and may be as appropriate to a consignment or a memorandum shipment as it is to a sale. Joseph B. Cooper & Son, Inc v. Finlay Depts., Inc., 11 Misc. 2d 382, 174 N.Y.S.2d 265, 269. Document showing details of a sale or purchase transaction. A list sent to a purchaser, factor, consignee, etc., containing the items, together with the prices and charges of merchandise sent or to be sent to him. A writing made on behalf of an importer, specifying the merchandise imported, and its true cost or value.” 18.The Supreme Court in the matter of Groupe Chimique Tunisien SA v. Southern Petrochemicals Industries Corpn. Ltd. , (2006) 5 SCC 275 , with reference to arbitration agreement, has held that the purchase orders are the contracts, invoice is a document which is prepared with reference to the supplies made under the contract and when the contract (purchase order) incorporates an arbitration agreement by reference, the invoice need not contain a provision for arbitration. Similarly, the Delhi High Court in Modern Construction Company Delhi (supra), relying upon its earlier decision in the matter of KglSystel Ltd. v. Fujitsu Icim Ltd. , 2001 SCC OnLine Del 440, has held that Invoice is a Written Contract. Similarly, the Delhi High Court in Modern Construction Company Delhi (supra), relying upon its earlier decision in the matter of KglSystel Ltd. v. Fujitsu Icim Ltd. , 2001 SCC OnLine Del 440, has held that Invoice is a Written Contract. Thus, it is quite clear that invoice is a written contract for the purpose of royalty on coal as contemplated in the notification dated 1-8-2007. 19.Considering the definition of ‘invoice’ as contained in the Black’s Law Dictionary, any writing specifying the goods and its true price is an Invoice which is akin to a Written Contract and furthermore, in view of the decision of the Delhi High Court in Modern Construction Company Delhi (supra), invoice is a document prepared with regard to contract. 20.In the instant case, admittedly and undisputedly, royalty has been paid by the petitioner for the relevant years in question on the basis of the price as reflected in the invoice (which is a written contract) / as per the formula and if the argument of the learned State counsel is accepted that if royalty is payable as per the notification dated 26-2- 2011, it would amount to amending the notification of the Central Government dated 1-8-2007, which the State Government is not empowered in law, as the petitioner was obliged to pay royalty on the price as reflected in the invoice and it is not in dispute that the petitioner had already paid royalty on coal as reflected in the invoice as per the notification dated 1-8-2007 notified by the Central Government. 21.Furthermore, recommendations of the audit authority is not binding. In the matter of Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Limited and another v. CG Power and Industrial Solutions Limited and another , (2021) 6 SCC 15 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that forcefully extracting building cess from the respondent therein in respect of the contract solely on the basis of report of CAG is in excess of power conferred by law in terms of the contract. 22.The Supreme Court in the matter of M/s. Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited and another v. Central Bureau of Investigation , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2250 while dealing with the subject, “Sanctity of An Audit Report in Law”, held that the views taken by the CAG to the effect that tremendous loss had been caused to the public exchequer on account of the coal rejects being disposed of by the KPCL and KECML remains a view point but cannot be accepted as decisive, as such, on the basis of audit report, no order of additional demand should have been raised. 23.For the foregoing reasons enumerated above, the impugned orders deserve to be interfered with in exercise of the powers vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The order dated 2-9-2013 (Annexure P-7) in W.P.(C)No.1691/2013 and as also the orders dated 12-6-2013 (Annexure P-2) and 31-8-2013 (Annexure P- 4) in W.P.(C)No.1645/2013 passed by the Collector (Mining Department), Korba are hereby quashed. 24.The writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No order as to cost(s).