Refund bar on passed-on market fee is a valid incidental incident of fee legislation, preventing unjust enrichment.

Section 23A of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act was treated as a valid refund-control provision, not as a retrospective validation of an illegal levy. It did not authorise collection at an enhanced rate or cure excess collection; instead, it prevented a dealer who had passed the fee burden to purchasers from obtaining a refund and being unjustly enriched. The State Legislature was held competent to enact such a provision because the power to legislate on fee levy and collection includes incidental and ancillary rules governing refund and retention. The challenge failed, and the statutory bar on refund to dealers was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether section 23A of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act was an impermissible attempt to validate an illegal levy and refund scheme; (ii) whether the Punjab Legislature had competence to enact a provision enabling retention of fee already passed on to purchasers and prohibiting refund to the dealer.

Issue (i): Whether section 23A of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act was an impermissible attempt to validate an illegal levy and refund scheme.

Analysis: The provision did not authorise levy or collection of market fee at the enhanced rate, nor did it retrospectively validate the excess collection. Its object was to prevent a dealer, who had already shifted the burden to the next purchaser, from obtaining a refund and thereby being unjustly enriched. The amount was treated as money collected from the public for the public purpose of the marketing scheme and was allowed to remain with the market committee for statutory use.

Conclusion: Section 23A was not a validating provision and was held to be legally permissible.

Issue (ii): Whether the Punjab Legislature had competence to enact a provision enabling retention of fee already passed on to purchasers and prohibiting refund to the dealer.

Analysis: The power to legislate on a fee includes incidental and ancillary power to provide the machinery and consequences of collection, including refund rules. A refund provision that prevents recovery by a person who has already passed on the burden is within that legislative field and does not amount to recovery of an illegal levy. The distinction between levy, collection, and refund supported the competence of the State to enact the provision.

Conclusion: The Legislature had competence to enact section 23A, and the provision was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to section 23A failed, the statutory restriction against refund to dealers who had passed on the burden was sustained, and the appeals were dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund provision that prevents unjust enrichment by denying repayment to a person who has passed on the burden of a fee is a valid incidental and ancillary incident of the power to legislate on the levy and collection of that fee.

---