1. ' In these three petitions for interim relief petitioner Companies pray that the non-applicants may be restrained from recovering excise duty in respect of Textile Mills being run by them. The amount of the excise duty which non-applicants Nos.1 and 2, the Deputy Collector Excise and Taxation and Collector Excise and Taxation, are recovering from them includes some arrears of this duty which were not recovered from the petitioners on account of a stay order issued by the High Court during the pendency of the writ petitions out of which the present petitions for leave to appeal arise.
2. ' Circumstances in which the writ petitions were filed are that excise duty was being recovered by the Excise and Taxation Department under authority of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council which was challenged by filing petitions. It is now admitted that the excise duty was not in the Council Legislative List and the law under which the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council levied the duty and all the acts in connection with its recovery were void ab initio.
3. ' During the pendency of the writ petitions an Ordinance was promulgated by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister of Azad Jammu and Kashmir by which the excise duty was levied and retrospective effect was given to the Ordinance effective from 1979. Under the Ordinance the Excise and Taxation Department was authorised to collect the duty. A validation clause was also inserted in the Ordinance which laid down that all actions taken and things done by the relevant functionaries during the period beginning from the date on which the Ordinance was made effective to the date of promulgation of the Ordinance were to be deemed to have been validly taken and done under the Ordinance. This Ordinance was duly followed by an Act of the Assembly which contained similar provisions.
4. ' When arguments were heard in the High Court the aforesaid Ordinance and the Act of the Assembly were brought to the notice of the High Court and it was argued on behalf of the respondents that in view of the retrospectively of the Act as well as the validation clause all acts done since 1979 were valid. It was conceded that Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council did not have the authority to legislate or to act in respect of the excise duty. Before the High Court the petitioner Companies did not contest the validity of the Act of the Assembly passed during the pendency of the writ petitions but vehemently contended that the validation clause could not be given effect to because in law coram non judice acts could not be validated with retrospective effect. The High Court rejected this plea and dismissed the writ petitions.
5. ' When the High Court was seized of the writ petitions mentioned above the Act of the Assembly referred to above came under consideration in Qureshi Vegetable Ghee Mills v. The Deputy Collector Income Tax and others Civil Appeal No,8 of 1990, decided on 26-5-1990 and this Court recorded the verdict that the retrospectivity given to the Act of the Assembly referred to above and the validation granted under section 3 of that Act were unexceptionable. It rejected the submissions that acts done before the coming into force of the Act could not have been validated.
6. ' Before me the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Companies submitted that the High Court has wrongly held that the actions taken by the Deputy- Collector and the orders passed before coming into force of the Act of the Assembly stand validated by virtue of section 3 of the aforesaid Act. It was also contended that the retrospectively given to the Act of the Assembly offends against the fundamental right No,4 (no retrospective punishment).
7. After going through the judgment of this Court in Qureshi Vegetable Ghee Mills v. Deputy Collector Excise and Taxation and others I may observe that the Act of the Assembly under reference has been thoroughly brought under consideration by this Court and it has been clearly laid down that acts done, orders passed and taxes collected etc. Before coming into force the aforesaid Act stand validated. This Court rejected the contention that acts which were coram non judice when they were performed could not be validated subsequently and it was held that the question of validation was to be decided not in light of the law as it originally stood but in light of the law which had been subsequently enforced retrospectively. The conclusion drawn by this Court is clear that acts which were without jurisdiction when performed were no longer without jurisdiction because they stand validated by the Act of the Assembly.
8. ' In my view realisation of tax cannot be stayed except in exceptional circumstances and I have no hesitation in saying that no such circumstances exist in these cases. I note that when the writ petitions were filed in the High Court a stay order was issued in favour of the petitioner Companies because interference by the High Court was justified in view of the fact that even a cursory glance at the Council Legislative List was sufficient to show ex facie that excise duty was not included in that list.
9. I do not find any force in submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner Companies would suffer irreparable loss if realisation of arrears of excise duty is not stayed. If the petitioners ultimately succeed in this Court the amounts recovered from them will be refunded and loss, if any, shall thus be made up. The balance of convenience also, in my view, demands that recovery of State Revenue may not be stayed in the absence of special circumstances.
10. ' In this view of the matter I see no force in the applications and consequently dismiss them. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.