Baf CF0000147286 '^' "^v. /'^ ff- ^:'::';'';J):-^.-'" ¥ ;.s ^' IN THS.HIGH C00RT OF H^HTA PRADSSH AT JABALPUR ^ise^^P^trtion No^^ (A^-—/8.?.. " Ashanand Wadhwani< . ' / ^, g/o late Shri Harpal Das Wadhwani,', , ; aged about 64 years, Sole Proprietor\of Firm Shanker Itel Mill, Bhatarapara, ; ; Distt-Raipur(M.^"_-^,---^ --—<'; • -, <''1: ^ n.Gs.a^wc.m.w ~ - -0 -. / 'l'. Krishi Upaj Matrii Saiaa.tfit-;. .•fchi'o' ?-he SscrstarsL. Bdatapara, Saipur, H.P. 2. Direetor o£ SafsSt, , Kriehi Upaj natid i 8a^kari Bhawan, Bhopal ; £EIITIQNUNDSR 31CLS 226/227 OF THS JCIONSII'roTION'' J| :6r-j(®iA" ''; '•.;•')•:| ll.i!:";ffl •:••)••-tiif^-'?-!'??' 62 \jT»i'<iiqino,utTl<(-i<i<B,Rni'<iy'< 1!*1«I^W?»1^ff.t:.3.^.^.^S. ^200 3IT^?T IR^ (^cjfjd^) an^?rwR-i aaiT3II^9Tri»*<i* s^araR^ifeTan^T 26.8.3005 cfrl^lfd<i1'1 tlWdT^fe^cl xluifsix ^sif^'iTaii^CT qi^estic tbfat Smt. Anju Atiuja, Advocat^ Shri H.B. Agarwal, Sr, Advocate for the respondent. - The petitioner has preferr^d tlie Coaatitution of India correctaess of demand notice Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bhatapara amomit of Rs.93,059-94 paise for the year 1973-74 to 1984-t 30.6.1989 (Aimexure F) wberebt has been dismissed. Ttie peti.tioner's case is of processing & selling of Bhatapara. The iuipugned petitioner for inakiag the Rs.93,059=94 paise, whereas, Maudi fee, therefore, the iltegaUy, arbitisiy and without is that on paynient of Maadi renewed froin fime to time and rcspondents were not entitled faj eatitled for exemption &X)IH the ^s (a) of the Act as it stood prior 1|o No.24 of 1986. Further case <t Ridcs, 1979 thc pctitioncr was| accordance wifh. Form-I fc for the petitioner. Advocate wittt Sliri Pa&kaj Agar>val, fhis petitioa under Article 226/227 of t^estioniag the legality, propriety and Idated 18.10.1986 whereby the Krishi |has asked the petitioner to deposit aa t|eiag outstandiag towards the Maadi fee p5 and also the appeUate order dated ^- the appeal preferred by the petifioner ftie petitioner is engaged iu fhe trade in the Krishi Upaj Mandi area of ce dated 18.10.1986 was issued to the of outstanding fee to the tuiie of pctitioner Iiad already paid the entire made by the respondents is basis. The petitioaer's furfher case D^l notifce payn^ent tte asselssment 4ny fee the license of the petitioner was tbat presc^ibed assessxaent haviag beconie final the rcopen the same aad the petitioner is tayment of maodi fee uader Section 19 its amendinent by the Amending Act ^f the petitioner is that by nitroducing rcqturcd to laaintam. thc accounta in in Rule 3 of aB purchase aud 10 SP/FS/2005-20,000 63 vj-cel <-t||^lri^l, t»Ti1'(i<l<»,Rrti'dy ..V..C...3.^.?.!.^.. *l!*tril ^TT^ '••••"•• ^200 2- 3K^?TVt'S (yi(gq<s) aii^TwR-fi* tCT3I1^?T**li* eTai8R^ifl?r3n^?r cbl<l[d<S1'1 *fl*f<->y^'fa'<SI '(Riltcit ^aif^Taii^CT processiag done by the procesi or and uuder Rule 4, the Processor vpas required to gjve a declaration i^i Form-II in. proofofthe fact that Maudi fee was paid on fhe agricultura} produce to any oftier Maadi Samiti aad which is used for processiag i4 the Maudi coaceraed. Under Rule 5, a cerdficate duly s^ned by tfae S ecretaiy of the concemed Mandi, where Manid fee was paid-on the ra^y inaterial was required to be produced along with the declaratiou in Pc declarations and certi&cates impossible to achieve as per n raw niaterial is purchased thrc or Dalals and fi"oui Dal inarket inn-III. The icquireiaent ofproduction of as prescribed m Form-II & III were onnal trade practice in Dal because the lugh the Conimission Agents, Adhatiyas througfaout the State. There is no Mandi fee leviable ou fhe retailers urjder Section 19 of ftie Adhuuyam.. The Maadi fee paid by fh.e wholesape commission agents or traders on the raw materials is ia their own iii^mes and on payment of such Maadi fee by ftie suppUeis of raw niaterisjls, the certificates can. be issued only in. the naine of traders or inarket functionary payiag the Mandi fee. No certificate can eifher be obtam^d or issued in favoiu- of ttie processor claimiag exemption from tfae p|ayment of inaadi fee. Since ffae Mandi fee is paid by fhe conceraed upplier of raw material, it was neifher possible for the processor to o^>tain a certificate in his own naaie fi-oia fhat concemed Mandi in the p^escnbed Ponn-III aor was it possible to give a declaration in its own E case of ttie petitioner is that the ame in. the prescribed Form-II. Further petitiouer has ah-eady paid Rs.23,265-/ towards Mandi fee with the M4ndi Samiti and fhcrefore, he is entitled for adjusttnent ofthat amount. I havc heard fcaracd cou4sel for the partics, SP/FS/2005-20,000 64 *1!*<«I^^T?? ^Fcq•^iwwii,wS\w\s, Romyt . ^..^l^/^i...... ^200 3 311^91'WR(yiigq«s) 3iit?rwR-i aaTran^CTdifKp ^Rnwi'iriiasii^CT Learaed counsel for tl^e petitioner argued tfaat ia tbe Grst iastance, the said Rutes cam^ into effect on 20.8.1979 whercby the petitioner was required to fiiro^sh ffae certificate in prescribed Porms 2 & 3 aftcr comiug mto force o< had reopened the case of fhe pemiissible under the law. Ipetitioner prior to 1979, which was not fhe second ground taised by tearaed ^t as laenrioned ia Paragraph Nos. 14 to counsel for tfae petitioner is th^ 16 of tfae petition certain aijioiuits werc already deposited by fhe petitioner even fhen adjustme|at of same has not been given to fhe petitioner. At the same time, c|ounsel for the -petitioner argued that the deniaud noti.ee was issued ineifclv ou the basis of reeord luainfflined by the Naka, which was existiag the entries were made abou petitioaer in fhe Mandi area, Ucense was reuewed fix>m time basis issued ttie said demaad < iaterest, whereas, 20% iaterest respoBdents ai^ued that it i Dal was sold by hiin aad how processuig without selling the <hl^ld41-< tllHdt"'ff^'^ '(lultclx ^arf^T3II^?T these Rules, whereas, ttie respoadents .t the outer limit of Maudi area In wbich tfae Dal which was brought by the •xcept fhis fhere is ao ofher document which cau be inade basis for i^suance of unpugned deinaad of noti.ee. The petitioner was regulariy p^yuig the Mandi fee aad therefore, tiis (o time aad tfae respondents wifhout any jifnotice. She ftuther aiyied ttiat uader Section 61 of fhe Act fhere i^ no .pravision regarding imposition of has been unposed agaiust the petitioner jn an iUegaI atid arbitraiy inaiu^er. On the other hand, Sh^i Aganval teamed Sr. Couusel for ttie evident fix>ia ttie order of appellate aufhority that the petitioner ^as given opportuaity to produce his iedger account and other docuu|tents lor proviag the tact fhat how inuch niuch Dal waa givcn back by him after same, but the petidoner was faUed to SP/FS/2005-20,000 a? CTtiil l;i:. *^ii^gt&. Eei! Btl Bti 65 *ll*fC91 ^^TO ' vjw|<-yi^lriA|, i»-CTl<ti<is,Rni<(iy'< ,..^^^^2/^ ^see^ an^stV3 (4<ilj6i<i) aii^iiprR'fi* aan3ii$9Td>*<i<h Bi ^ -f. S^fTSR^Tfl^ 3II^?T -^ prod^iced outsta4diag ordel'ed barik the chart Annexi-ire R-1 28,262=90 paise was pajd b| paise was shown as apart fix>m the amouat, whi^ Aanexure R-l, if any other respondenta are direcfed to amoiint on production of pr^ period offour weeks fi?om todsl As far as tiie interest d iaterest @ 20% has been no basis has been recorded £ During that period nbnnal amount is outstaading agam^ the saine, therefore, in th| outstauding amount is i^ducq liable to pay 10% interest on As far as the ottier the petitioner are concemed, appeUate order shows that evf the ledger accouiit aad other g to prove that the Mandi fee faUed to produce any failed to produce ttie Foim Secretaiy, Mandi Samiti regar^ decision of Maadi Sa.miti as for any iiiterfcrencc by thia Co\ In the result, the writ pel by the Mandi Saxniti sb.owa that Rs. ^ tUe petitioner, whereas, Rs.93,059=94 against fhe petitioner. TIierefore, |;h has been shown by Maadi Sanuti iu; a^nount is paid by the petitioner then the ^djust the same against tbe outstandiai |>of of deposit by the petitioner withia a documekit \4'eU <bl<|fri4)'f *ii*inT^"fe€t'([uii^i't i|?3lRl19II^?T tbe ar^unents fri the outstanding amouat is concemed, to be recovered froiu the petitioner but [)r iniposing such a high rate of interest. iiiterest rate was about 10% aad as the |t the petitioner aad lie has not deposited circumstances, the uiterest on the |d fix>ia 20% to 10% i.e. the petitioner is outstandiug aniount. advaaced by learaed counsel for Isame are wifhout aav basis, Ferusal of *n fhe petitioner was ailowed to produce lccounts be&re the MandiSamiti in order ^cas paid by bira, but the petitioner was before tlie Mandi Samiti, he was also & III aad also the certt&cate of the ^ing payment of Mandi fee, fherefore, fhe as the appeUate authorily do not call ttrt. jltion 1s partly allqwed, to suin up; SP/FS/2005-20,000 66 3ii^?imR-fi<b aaiTsn^CTSPira; ^ .;-S.s!»,'Lt^.(, ^"T r«i«i«'y, UTil'«<!<»,firtmy WT»«^.S.ta./Sl........ srr^gi q^p (^ciijci^) g^iKR'MRdan^T (1) (2) respoiidents considermg th' wards; respondents (3) petitioner apai|t R-l: respondents sl|i( outstaadias above ainount ai?e directed to reviae the demnnd notice Mandi fee payable from 20.8. 1979 on i|iould adjust fhe amount paid by fhe frosa. the amount shown ia Aiinexure IjiouM charge interest @ 10% ^ainst the arrived at after the deductiou of fhe |froia tfae date ofits outstanding. feb Certtfled copy as per rule <pi<ifcl><n't*ii*inT^T5x^l xRn'^l^ ^sTf^ian^?! Sd/, L.C. Bhadoo Judge SP/F9^2005-20,000 ^^ "i ^