Uma Nath Singh, J.

1. This judgment shall also dispose of the connected batch of 112 writ petitions as mentioned in Annexure-A hereto since they raise, amongst others, important common questions of law, based on some what identical facts, relating to challenge to the validity of (i) The Punjab Infrastructure Development Ordinance 1998 (Punjab Ordinance No. 7 of 1998)/The Punjab Infrastructure Development Act 1998 (Punjab Act No. 1 of 1999) and The Punjab infrastructure Development Cess (Collection) Rules, 1998 framed thereunder; (ii) The Punjab Infrastructure (Development & Regulation) Act, 2002 (inclusive of Schedule 1, II and III); (iii) Levy of cess under 1998 Ordinance/Act and Rules @ 1%, and fee @ 3% (though chargeable upto 6%) under the 2002 Act, on ad valorem basis on sale and purchase of all agricultural produces except fruits, vegetables and pulses; (iv) use of machinery as provided under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act for collection of cess/fee, and (v) the clarificatory notification No. 7/8/98-5FBI/-4865 dated 8.4.1999 issued by the Government of Punjab (Department of Finance). Broadly, the common grounds of challenge are -

(i) that the levy of cess under The Punjab Infrastructure Development Ordinance/The Punjab Infrastructure Development Act 1998 (for short -the 1998 Act-) and The Punjab Infrastructure Development Cess (Collection) Rules 1998 (for short -the Cess (Collection) Rules)- and fee under the Punjab Infrastructure (Development & Collection) Act 2002 (for short -the 2002 Act-) is discriminatory being violative of Articles 14 & 286 (3) of the Constitution of India, as they were levied at the rate of 1% and 3% (extendable upto 6%) respectively only on the items mentioned in Schedule III to the Acts, and collected in the manner prescribed in the Acts which is not sustainable in law;

(ii) that there is absence of the element of Quid Pro Quo to justify the levy of cess and fee as the services rendered in lieu of the levy of imposts are devoid of proportionality and are not provided exclusively for the payers of imposts;

(iii) that the State legislature has passed the impugned statutes beyond the pale of competence as the same could be passed only under the entries of lists II and III of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, and the Government of Punjab (Department of Finance) has encroached upon legislative field in issuing clarificatory notification dated 8.4.1999 (Annexure P-4) in the absence of express delegation of such powers or in the excess thereof;

(iv) that this is not clear from the factual background, and the purpose and objects of the enactments as to whether the imposts in question are a tax or cess/fee;

(v) that the charging Section 4 of the 1998 Act and Section 25 of the 2002 Act are violative of Sections 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act in as much as they empower the assessing authority to recover an additional Sales Tax in the guise of cess @1% under the 1998 Act and fee @3% (chargeable upto 6%) under the 2002 Act, as per the mechanism and procedure provided under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act (for short the PGST Act);

(vi) that if the cess or fee is to be levied, then it should be collected only from the registered dealers on the first sale and purchase;

(vi) that the impost amount is not being deposited in a consolidated fund provided in Article 266 of the Constitution of India;

(viii) that the petitioner Flour and Rice Mills are entitled to claim the refund of imposts amount paid to the FCI, which being a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act (the CST Act) and the Punjab General Sales Tax Act (the PGST Act), is required to pay on the first purchase and sale;

(ix) that the petitioners were not given the opportunity to submit objections or of being heard before deciding to levy the imposts in question nor is there any effective representation on their behalf in the apex body of the Organisation namely the Punjab Infrastructure Development Board (for short