IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 5084 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : 05.02.2008 Ovinder Sood and others .... PETITIONERS Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. A.G. Masih, Senior DAG, Punjab, for respondents No.1 and 5. Ms. Jarnail Kaur, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. H.S. Dhindsa, Advocate, for Mr. S.K. Pruthi, Advocate, for respondent No.3. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. (Oral) 1. In the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the demand notice dated 26.2.2007 (Annexure P-7) issued by respondent No.4 as well as the notice dated 8.3.2007 (Annexure P-8) issued by respondent No.5. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that earlier when the similar notices were issued to them, they challenged the same before this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 13990 of 2005 on the ground that the Market Committee was recovering the said amount without framing assessment CWP No. 5084 of 2007 -2- against the petitioners under the provisions of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated July 07, 2006, with the following observations : “We need not dilate on facts any further as in our view short issue raised in the petition as to whether demand can be raised without there being an assessment order is squarely covered by numerous judgments of this court and latest being in CWP No. 6778 of 2006,titled as M/s L.T. Overseas Limited, Bahalgarh, Sonepat vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 30.05.2006, where a Division Bench of this Court while referring to earlier judgments of this Court in M/s Puri Oil Mills Ltd. Vs. Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula (1997-1) P.L.R. 226 and United Riceland Limited Vs. State of Haryana, (2001-02) P.L.R. 459, held as under :- `Following the dictum of law laid down by this court, in the cases referred to above, we quash notices Annexures P-9 and P-10 and direct respondent No.3 to proceed further against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules under both the Acts. Respondent No.3 is at liberty to frame the assessment in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to the petitioner.' For the reasons stated in a judgment of this Court in M/s CWP No. 5084 of 2007 -3- L.T. Overseas Limited's case (supra), the show cause/demand notice, Annexure P-4, Dated 27.5.2005 is set aside and we direct respondent No.4 to proceed further against the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The respondent No.4 is at liberty to frame assessment in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to the petitioners and considering the objections raised by the petitioners, if any. The writ petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above.” 3. It is the case of the petitioners that again, without providing opportunity of hearing and framing the assessment against them, respondents No.4 and 5 issued the impugned show cause notice for recovery of the same amount. 4. We have heard counsel for the petitioners. 5. Mr. A.G. Masih, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, points out that the recovery notice Annexure P-8 pertains to the assessment year 2002-03, as stated in para 25 of the written statement, filed by respondent No.4. He further states that as far as the earlier recovery notices, which were challenged by the petitioners in the aforesaid CWP, are concerned, the same were not pertaining to the said assessment year and the recovery for the said assessment year was not challenged by the petitioners in the earlier petition. Mr. Masih further submits that if an assessment order CWP No. 5084 of 2007 -4- for the said assessment year is passed, it will be open for the petitioners to challenge the same. Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioners, could not controvert the aforesaid factual position and submits that the assessee will challenge the said assessment order by filing an appeal before the competent authority in accordance with law. Mr. Masih further states that as far as the recovery vide notice Annexure P-8 is concerned, the same is being effected in pursuance of the assessment order passed for the said assessment year, against which the petitioners have not filed any appeal. He submits that the petitioners are at liberty to challenge the order of assessment pertaining to the assessment year 2002-03. As far as notice dated 26.2.2007 (Annexure P-7) is concerned, Mr. A.G. Masih, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from Mr. Bhushan Kumar, Secretary, Market Committee, Amloh, who is present in Court, states that the said notice pertains to the period from 1.6.2003 to 31.3.2004. He further states that since the notice for recovery of the said period was not in accordance with the Rules and the decision given by this Court, therefore, at present, the Market Committee, Amloh, withdraws the said notice. He submits that recovery, if any, against the petitioners will be effected in accordance with law after passing the order of assessment by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. In that regard, a notice has already been issued to the petitioners and the Assessing Authority will pass the order of assessment after hearing the petitioners within a period of three months and till the order of CWP No. 5084 of 2007 -5- assessment is passed, no recovery will be effected from the petitioners. The petitioners are directed to appear before the Assessing Officer on February 26, 2008. This writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE February 05, 2008 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ndj JUDGE