ORDER :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The petitioner herein namely, J.K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd. seeks to challenge the constitutional validity of the rules enacted by notification dated 29-4-2003 namely, the Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat Terminal Tax (Assessment and Collection) Goods Export in Limits Rules, 2003 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2003’) framed by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Serial No.14 of Schedule II read with sub-section (2) of Section 77, subsection (1) of Section 78 & Section 79 and also read with sub-section (1) of Section 95 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adnihiyam, 1993 (for short, ‘the Act of 1993’), which came into force with effect from 29-4-2003 on the ground that the Rules of 2003 are unconstitutional as it suffers from vice of excessive delegation and also seeks to challenge the correspondences dated 19-9-2016 (Annexure P-10) & 26-10- 2016 (Annexure P-11) as without jurisdiction and without authority of law, and finally seeks an appropriate writ restraining respondent No.4 in particular from imposing terminal tax upon the petitioner.

2. The above-stated challenge to the constitutional validity of the Rules of 2003 has been made on the following factual backdrop:-

Petitioner’s Case: -

3. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of manufacturing of cement and its sale to public at large. While conducting its business, the petitioner company was served with memo dated 24-12-2015 (Annexure P-2) by respondent No.4 Gram Panchayat, Malpuri Khurd asking to be subjected to a meeting convened with the representatives of the Gram Panchayat and arrange to process for fixation of taxes to be paid by it which the petitioner company replied by memo dated 12-1-2016 (Annexure P-3) requesting the Collector to interfere in the matter restraining respondents No.3 & 4 from taking any coercive action against it and asked for some time, as the Sarpanch of respondent No.4 Gram Panchayat was accused in criminal case arising out of assault over the plant of the petitioner company, but despite the said situation, respondent No.4 did not wait for reasonable time and by letter dated 1-2-2016 (Annexure P-4) communicated the unilateral decision to recover the taxes obligatory/or optional from the petitioner company followed by memo dated 16-4-2016 (Annexure P-5). However, respondent No.3 – Janpad Panchayat, Dhamdha issued letter dated 19-9-2016 (Annexure P-10) directing the petitioner company to pay various taxes including terminal tax for which a meeting was scheduled on 27-9-2016 asking the presence of the representative of the petitioner company, however, since the meeting did not take place on 27-9-2016, such a meeting was fixed on various dates, however, the same could not take place and on many occasions, the petitioner company was informed about absence of its representative despite his presence being there, which was firmly and categorically communicated to the authorities vide Annexure P-11 collectively. As such, respondent No.3 has decided to impose taxes in violation of Rule 2(12) of the Rules of 2003 as informed by letter dated 25-9-2017 (Annexure P-12) to which the petitioner company firmly replied stating that without confirming the applicability of the Rules of 2003 to the petitioner, it would be unreasonable to subject the petitioner company to taxes as intended by the respondents time and again. However, the writ petition has been amended by inserting para 8.14(A) impugning letter dated 19-9-2016 (Annexure P-10) which for the first time referred to ‘terminal tax’ and also impugning letter dated 26-10-2016 (Annexure P-11) whereby the Janpad Panchayat asked the petitioner company to appear in a meeting on 7-11-2016 in its office in presence of certain officials contrary to what is prescribed in Rule 2(12) of the Rules of 2003. It is the case of the petitioner company that the imposition of terminal tax in the manner proposed under Schedule I appen