JUDGMENT A. K. MATHUR, AG. C.J. - By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed that the M. P. Samanya Vikraya Kar (Vishesh Upbandh) Adhiniyam, 1986 (No. 12 of 1986) and notification (annexure D) may be declared ultra vires and unconstitutional and have also prayed that the respondents be restrained by a writ of prohibition, from denying the right of set-off to any member of petitioner No. 1 pursuant to the amendment Act and and the notification. It is also prayed that the set-off may be permitted with interest from August 1, 1985 onwards to members of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2. 2. Petitioner No. 1, Guru Nanak Timber Market Merchants Association is an association of timber merchants and petitioner No. 2 is its member. They are registered under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short, "the Act"), as dealers. They deal in timber. During the course of their business, the timber merchants purchased logs of timber from the Forest Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh and sales tax is required to be paid by the timber merchants to the Forest Department at the time of payment of price. The title to the logs of timber passes to the timber merchants when the full payment of price is made. Timber merchants are allowed to take possession and remove them to their premises after payment of price and sales tax. Timber merchants thereafter get the logs of timber sawn at their saw mills in convenient sizes according to requirements of their customers and sell the sawn timber partly to the customers out of the state of Madhya Pradesh. Before July 31, 1985, "sawing" was regarded as "manufacture" as defined in section 2(j) of the Act. Therefore, these merchants were treated as "manufactures" and the purchase of the logs was governed by the lower rate of tax at 3.5 per cent applicable to manufacturers and not the full rate of 17 per cent applicable to a purchaser who was not a manufacturer. 3. Section 8 permitted a set-off or refund of tax in respect of tax-paid goods in certain circumstances, as mentioned. 3. Section 8 permitted a set-off or refund of tax in respect of tax-paid goods in certain circumstances, as mentioned. The concessional rate of 3.5 percent was available to manufacturers on production of recognition certificate under section 16-C of the Act in form No. IV under rule 14-C(2) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, by applying in form No. III-B. In case a timber merchant was unable to produce recognition certificate due to delay on the part of the Sales Tax Department or otherwise, then he could claim the set-off subsequently. This system continued for quite sometime, but on July 19, 1985, a notification was issued whereby operation of "sawing" ceased to be process of manufacturer by amending the definition of section 2(j) of the Act. Accordingly, after August 1, 1985, timber merchants purchasing logs from the Forest Department, were undisputedly liable to pay tax at 17 per cent and not on concessional rate of 3.5 per cent. This increase the tax liability of the merchants. 4. The association, represented before respondent No. 1 that a clarification may be issued whether this notification will affect the past transaction or not, but without any result. Meanwhile, M. P. Samanya Vikraya Kar (Vishesh Upbandh) Adhiniyam, 1986 (No. 12 of 1986) came into force which provided for a special provision with regard to levy of tax in certain circumstances on the timber held in stock on August 1, 1985 and grant of set-off in respect of tax-paid goods on May 15, 1986 and used thereafter as a raw material or incidental goods in the manufacture of other goods for sale. Therefore, the petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the validity of this Act. 5. We have gone through the petition and heard learned counsel. So far as this Act is concerned, it is a special enactment for catering to the contingency which has arisen on account of the amendment in section 2(j) of the word "manufacture" appearing in the definition. Now after the amendment in the definition, the effect is that a merchant shall not be entitled to the concessional rate of 3.5 percent of the sales tax, because he has ceased to be a "manufacturer" and timber will be exigible to full rate of 17 per cent. 6. Now after the amendment in the definition, the effect is that a merchant shall not be entitled to the concessional rate of 3.5 percent of the sales tax, because he has ceased to be a "manufacturer" and timber will be exigible to full rate of 17 per cent. 6. Shri Dhande, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that this Act has retrospective effect and has also submitted that it makes two classes : (i) Who held the stock on July 31, 1985 after payment of tax at full rate of 17 per cent and (ii) dealers who held stock of timber as on July 31, 1985 purchased at a concessional rate of 3.5 per cent. Learned counsel submitted that by virtue of this Act, these two classes are discriminatory and this amending Act will have retrospective effect also. Learned counsel submitted that taxing statue cannot be given retrospective effect. 7. We have heard learned counsel and persuade the record. We are of the opinion that the Act of 1987 neither has retrospective effect, nor creates two classes, as submitted by learned counsel. According to the Statement of Objects and Reasons, it is an Act to make special provisions with regard to levy of tax in certain circumstances on timber held in stock on 1st August, 1985 and grant of set-off in respect of tax-paid goods held in stock on May 15, 1986 and used thereafter as raw material or incidental goods in the manufacture of other goods for sale. On account of amendment in the definition 2(j), a contingency has arisen to cater for this between two periods as to how the tax is to be computed. In order to meet this contingency, this enactment has been promulgated. Therefore, we are of the opinion that neither it is violative of any constitutional provision, nor has retrospective effect, nor it creates two classes, nor creates any kind of discrimination. We are of the opinion that it does not suffer from any illegality so as to declare it ultra vires of the Constitution or otherwise. 8. Learned counsel submitted that he has come directly before this Court against the order passed by the appellate authority, i.e. the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore (annexure F) who, by his order dated January 5, 1989, has rejected the appeal of the petitioners filed against the assessment order passed by the assessing authority. 8. Learned counsel submitted that he has come directly before this Court against the order passed by the appellate authority, i.e. the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore (annexure F) who, by his order dated January 5, 1989, has rejected the appeal of the petitioners filed against the assessment order passed by the assessing authority. Learned counsel submitted that he could have filed second appeal under the Act, but because he was bona fide pursuing the remedy before this Court as he has challenged the validity of the Act and he could not file second appeal. Be that as it may. We have already found that the Act does not suffer from any illegality. In case there is remedy against this order under the Act, the petitioners may pursue it before the competent forum in accordance with law. 9. Hence there is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. Security amount, if deposited, be refunded to the petitioners. Petition dismissed.