SHAHID KARIM, J.----This constitutional petition challenges the recovery notice dated 19-3-2018 as well as the challan for the .payment of the amount mentioned in the recovery notice dated 31.03.2018. However , the primary relief is a challenge to the Rules 8 and 9 of the Punjab Luxury House Tax Rules, 2014 (Rules, 2014 ) as being ultra vires section 8 of the Punjab Finance Act, 2014 (Act, 2014).
2. This order will also decide connected petitions W.P. No.196207 of 2018, W.P No.216159 of 2018, W.P No.202718 of 2018 and W.P. No.208173 of 2018 as a common challenge has been raised in these petitions as well to Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules, 2014. The question of law will impact all of these petitions which are being taken up and decided together .
3. The dates for the recovery notices vary in each constitutional petition. However , as adumbrated, these notices have all been challenged precisely on the ground that they impinge upon the rights of the petitioners to approach the Grievance Committee in terms of Section 8(1 1) and (12) of the Act, 2014. These provisions provide that: "8. Luxury house tax.--....
(11) In case of any dispute relating to tax or exemption from the payment of the tax, a person may file an application before the grievance committee and subject to subsection (12), decisio n of the grievance committee on such dispute shall be final.
(12) Any person or an officer aggrieved by the decision of a grievance committee may, within fifteen days the date of communication of the decision, prefer an appeal to the Government.
4. Thus, the law provides remedy to resolve a dispute relating to tax or exemption from the payment of the tax to any person who is aggrieved of a notice requiring that person to pay the luxury tax. That person may file an application before the grievance committee (set up for the purpose) and the decision of the grievance committee shall be final. Subsection (12) of section 8 provides an appeal to the Govern ment from the decision of the grievance committee. The provisions of the Act, 2014 referred to above merely provide a remedy to an aggrieved person without any pre condition to approach the grievance committee for the resolution of the dispute. However , the Rules, 2014 which enact the procedure for application to the grievance committee place a clog on the right of the petitioners to file the application by prescribing a pre-condition to the following ef fect: "9. Application to the grievance committee.
(1) Any person aggrieved, by the order of the assessing authority may file an application before the grievance committee within a period of thirty days from the date of the order of the assessing authority along with the proof of payment of at least .one installment of the tax.
(2) The grievance committee shall decide the application within a period of thirty days from the date of the filing of the application.
5. A reading of Rule 9 above shows that an aggrieved person may file an application within a period of 30 days along with the proof of payment of at least one installment of the tax. Thus, it may be noted that while the Act of 2014 does not lay down a condition for filing an application to the grievance committee, this is starkly different to what has been provided in Rule 9 of the Rules, 2014. The primary argument in this Court is that this is an unconstitutional condition and must be declared ultra vires .
6. Learned A.A.G has argued that the condition prescribed by Rule 9 does not offend the rights of the petitioners to approach the grievance committee.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that Rule 9 is an unconstitutional fetter on the rights of the petitioners to approach the grievance committee through an application. This conclusion is based on two grounds.
8. Firstly , it is trite principle that the rules enacted pursuant to a statute cannot travel beyond the mandate of the main statute. As reproduced above, the Act of 2014 provides a remedy for filing an application to the grievance committee in case of a dispute. It does not prescribe any pre condition which will have to be complied with by a person prior to approaching the grievance committee. In case the legislature intended for such a condition to be imposed, it could well have mentioned the condition in the statute itself and, therefore, the necessary implication is that the legislature did not delegate any power on the government to impose a condition which was not contemplated in the main enactment. The statutory scheme could not be upended by providing a condition which is not only stringent but also unlawfully curtails the right of a person to approach the grievance committee. The imposition through the Rules of 2014 is clearly ultra vires on account of the settled principle that it is beyond the periphery of the main statute and must be struck down on this ground.
9. Secondly , the condition for the deposit of one installment of the tax impinges upon the right of a person guaranteed by the Constitution. That right is a right of access to justice enshrined in Article 9 of the Constitution and in a plethora of judgments of the superior courts it has been laid down that any such fetter imposed through a sub-legislative measure offends the right of access to justice and cannot be countenanced. The rule is that a person has the right to approach a forum provided by law unhindered by any conditionality and especially in case of financial and economic burdens. No such condition can be imposed on an aggrieved person which would be tantamount to taking away the right of access to a forum. Thus, on this ground too, the condition laid down in rule 9 is unconstitutional and must be declared as such.
10. This order will-remain confined to the legality of rule 9 and no determination is made regarding Rule 8 which question does not arise under the circumstances. The petitioners may challenge the said rule as and when it is invoked against the petitioners.
11. In view of the above, these petitions are allowed. Rule 9 of Rules, 2014 is stuck down to the extent that it imposes a condition on the petitioners to provide proof of payment of at least one installment of the tax. It is max clear that the petitioners may approach the grievance committee through an application without compliance of such a condition.