M.R.SHARMA,J. - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Civil Writs Nos. 3598, 8214, 3697, 4168, 7278, 8290, 8252 to 8262, 8283, 8245, 8247, 8215 and 8216 of 1976, as common questions of law and fact are involved in all of them.
(2.) FOR facility of reference, the facts giving rise to Writ Petition No. 3598 of 1976 may briefly be stated as under: The petitioner-firm is a licensee of the country liquor vends of village Kandhala Jattan and Deriwala in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Tanda, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. These vends were auctioned in favour of the petitioner-firm on 20th March, 1976, by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Jullundur, exercising powers of the Collector under the Punjab Excise Act. On March 21/22, 1976, the petitioner-firm read in the newspapers that the Panchayat Samiti, Tanda, respondent No. 3, passed a resolution on 18th March, 1976, to the effect that the Panchayat Samiti shall impose a tax on the sale of country liquor by the licensees operating in the area of Panchayat Samiti, Tanda. Even though no notice as required under Section 67 (2) of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act), had been given to the petitioners, yet they by way of abundant caution lodged objections to the proposal of the Samiti to impose the tax. A copy of the objections raised by the petitioner-firm has been attached to the petition as annexure P. 2 and it has been stated therein that, since the price of the country liquor has been fixed by the State Government, no tax can be imposed by the Samiti unless and until the Government re-fixes the sale price of the bottled liquor. It is then alleged that the Samiti without considering the objections raised in a legal and judicious manner rejected the same. The State Government issued a notification on 3rd June, 1976, whereby it accepted the proposal of the Panchayat Samiti. A copy of this notification is attached as annexure P. 4, which reads as under : Punjab Government Gazette (Extraordinary), 3rd June, 1976 (JYST 13, 1898 Saka ). Development and Panchayat Department Notification No. 18s5-BA and C-V-76/8758 dated the 3rd June, 1976. In pursuance of the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 67 of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1961, the Governor of Punjab is pleased to notify that Panchayat Samiti, Tanda, District Hoshiarpur, has, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 65 of the said Act, read with Punjab Government Memo. No. 1854-BA and C-5-76/4334 dated the 5th March, 1976, issued under Section 66 of the said Act, imposed a tax on the sale of country liquor, within the area subject to its authority, at the rates given below and is further pleased to direct that the said tax shall come into force with effect from 4th July, 1976 : Quart One rupee per bottle. Pint Fifty paise per bottle. Nip Twenty paise per bottle.
(3.) THE aforementioned notification and the levy of tax made by the Samiti have been challenged, inter alia, on the ground that the auction of the vends having been conducted on 20th March, 1976 and the sale price of bottled liquor having been fixed by the State Government, no further tax could have been levied by the Samiti on the sale of liquor. The impugned tax was a fee and since there was absence of an element of quid pro quo, the same should be held as illegal. If it is held that the impugned levy was a tax, the same could not be imposed because the State Government had exempted the levy of sales tax on liquor. In the course of arguments, constitutional validity of Section 66 of the Act was also challenged on the ground that the legislature had completely abdicated its essential legislative functions in favour of the executive Government by allowing it to authorise the levy of any tax even though the same had not been quantified. It was further submitted that Section 67 (2) of the Act envisaged taxes to be imposed on persons or property only and the impugned tax having been imposed on the incidence of sale was outside the scope of the Act. The last mentioned arguments though not mentioned in the writ petition were allowed by us to be raised because they were based on pure questions of law and we propose to dispose them of first of all.;