AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajive Bhalla, J.—By way of this order, we shall dispose of CWP Nos. 2844 and 13354 of 1995. Facts have been taken from CWP No. 2844 of 1995. The petitioner, a manufacturer of starch etc., prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing notice dated 28.1.1995, notification dated 31.5.1993 and prays that exemption granted after amendment of Rule 30(5) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962 (in short, the Rules), may be declared to operate retrospectively.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner imports maize from outside the State of Haryana and is, therefore, not liable to pay market fee whether on the definition of processing contained in Section 2(NN) or under Rule 30(5) (as amended on 29.4.1988) of the Rules. It is further contended that by mere insertion of the words "manufacturing" by the State of Haryana in Section 2(NN) of the Act, vide notification dated 29.4.1988, the respondents cannot demand market fee from 1.4.1987 to 29.4.1988. The demand raised in the impugned notice, for the period 1.4.1987 to 28.4.1988 is, therefore, null and void. It is further submitted that exemption from payment of market fee granted under rule 30(5), notified on 31.5.1993, should be given retrospective effect from 29.4.1988, the date of amendment of Section 2(NN) of the Act. The petitioner was pursuing the matter with the State of Haryana since amendment of Section 2(NN), but as the notification granting exemption was issued after delay, the notification should be ordered to operate retrospectively.
Counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 submits that notification dated 31.5.1993 amending Rule 30(5) of the Rules is prospective in operation and, therefore, cannot, by a process of judicial interpretation, be assigned retrospective effect from 29.4.1988. It is further submitted that delegated legislation, i.e., the rule making power can only be exercised retrospectively if the parent statute confers power on the delegatee to notify a rule retrospectively. In the absence of any such power, conferred by the parent Act and specific intent expressed in the notification that the amendment shall be prospective, the petitioner''s contentions are ill founded and may, therefore, be rejected. However, to a specific query as to how demand has been raised from 1.4.1987, when Section 2(NN) was amended to provide for payment of market fee with effect from 29.4.1988, counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 is unable to advance any worthwhile argument, in support of the show cause notice demanding market fee from 1.4.1987.
We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned show cause and find no reason to accept the prayer made in the writ petition with respect to exemption with retrospective effect. Section 23 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (as applicable to the State of Haryana) provides for payment of market fee. The petitioner was brought within ambit of this enactment by Section 2(NN), amended by Haryana Act No. 18 of 1988, with effect from 29.4.1988. The petitioner and others approached the State of Haryana for exemption from "market fee" as they had paid market fee outside the State. An amendment dated 31.5.1993, ensued in Rule 30(5) of the Rules, which reads as follows:--
Exemption from payment of market fees- (1) to (4) xxx xxx xxx
(5) The agricultural produce brought for processing from within the State or from outside the State and for which market fee has already been paid in any market in the State or outside the State, shall be exempted from payment of market fee second time.
The notification, amending Rule 30(5) to grant exemption from payment of market fee if such a fee has been paid in the State or outside the State, specifically records that the amendment shall come into effect from 31.5.1993. The petitioner''s contention that this provision should be read retrospectively, from 29.4.1988, the date of amendment of Section 2(NN) of the Act, in our considered opinion cannot be accepted as it is not founded on any statutory right much less any legal principle that would enable us to order that the amended Rule should operate retrospectively. An amendment of a rule is always prospective till such time as specific intent appears in the amending notification and then also if the retrospective operation is relatable to a power conferred by the parent statute. The notification issued to amend Rule 30(5) provides that Rule 30(5) shall come into effect from 31.5.1993. Rule 30(5) amended in exercise of power of delegated legislation cannot be assigned retrospective operation as no such intent is discernible from the notification and even otherwise the Act does not permit a delegatee to notify a rule retrospectively. In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner is liable to pay market fee from 29.4.1988 to 30.5.1993, the date on which notification granting exemption to the petitioner was notified. As regards the petitioner''s submission that as Section 2(NN) of the Act making the petitioner liable to pay market fee, was amended on 29.4.1988, the respondents cannot claim market fee from 1.4.1987, has to be accepted. Section 2(NN) of the Act was amended prospectively and applies from the date of its enactment. In this view of the matter, while dismissing the writ petition, vis-�-vis the obligation of the petitioner to pay market fee from 29.4.1988 to 30.5.1993, the writ petition is allowed in part by quashing the show cause notice (Annexure P-1) with respect to demand raised from 1.4.1987 to 28.4.1988. The amount already paid by the petitioner shall be adjusted towards its liability, to be calculated by the assessing authority and in case any amount is found due from the petitioner, the respondent shall be free to raise a demand from the petitioner, in accordance with law. The Assessing Authority shall assess and recover the amount with interest as applicable on the relevant date.
No order as to costs.