Through the instant petition the order dated 10-9-1987, passed by the Secretary Food, Government of the Punjab and order, dated 1st October, 1986, passed by Cane Commissioner, Punjab, have been assailed.
2. The relevant facts, which pertain to the present petition are, that the petitioner is a Sugar manufacturer. By virtue of section 12 of the Finance Act, 1964, Sugar Cane Development (Cess) was imposed and this provision was to take effect from the first day of July, 1964. According to section 12, the incidence of Cess was to be shared equally by the Sugar Mills and the person selling the sugar cane to the Mills.
3. The aforementioned section was amended on 14th of December, 1983 vide Punjab Finance (Amendment) Ordinance 1983 and new subsection (2-A) was inserted, prescribing new rates of Cess for the year 1983-84 as 3.5. per cent and for the financial year 1984-85 onward at the rate of five per cent of Sugar cane price rounded to the nearest paisa.
4. This amendment as per subsection (2) of section 1 was given effect from 1st July, 1983.
5. The petitioner was served with a notice, dated 7th of January, 1984, by Government of the Punjab to increase the rates of Cess from 1st July, 1983. The Cane Commissioner who vide order dated 1- 10-1986 directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears of the Cess, representing the share of the Mills, amounting to Rs,318,518.50. Against this order, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed on 10-9-1987. Hence this petition.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The main contention which has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that On the basis of principle of past and close transaction, no retrospective effect could be given to the above amendment, so as to create the liability of the petitioner to contribute towards the Cess. In this behalf, reliance is placed on 1971 SCM R 708.
7. I am afraid that the above contention has no force. According to the above judgment, it is a Government, which was empowered to revise the rate of fee every year and was held not entitled to increase such fee retrospectively. However, in the instant case, rate has been fixed by the amendment of the relevant law, through an Ordinance and specific date has been mentioned, when such increase would take effect. It is established principle of interpretation of statue that the Legislature had due authority in law to promulgate and enforce the law retrospectively, even by creating any liability of a person with retrospective effect.
8. The other contention that the Cess was to be collected not only from the petitioner but also from the cane growers who have not contributed, thus it is breach of principle of equality, suffice it to say that these two liability are independent, if the cane growers have not paid their share it cannot be held that the petitioner is also exonerated from the contribution. The liability of the petitioner being of independent nature could undoubtedly be enforced against him. I do not find any error in the order impugned in this petition calling for interference in my extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction. This petition thus has no merits and is hereby dismissed.