Dismissed

M/S Krbl Limited through Its Chairman and Managing Director v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC23 Mar 2018WRIC/6284/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging market fee and development cess assessments by Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti was dismissed. The Court held no illegality in charging fees based on a statutory 66.66% deemed rice recovery rate applicable for tax realization. Findings regarding export and domestic sale quantities were deemed lawful.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition is dismissed; no relief granted.

M/S Krbl Limited through Its Chairman and Managing… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Reserved

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6284 of 2018

¶4

Petitioner :- M/S KRBL Limited Through its Chairman Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Pandey,Ashish Mishra, H.R. Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Archit Mandhyan, Ashish Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.

¶6

Heard Sri H.R. Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri J.P. Pandey, for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Mishra, for respondents-2 and 3.

¶7

The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, dated 17.05.2012, assessing market fee and development cess upon the petitioner, Director of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, dated 10.11.2017, dismissing revision of the petitioner and consequential recovery notice dated 07.12.2017 issued to the petitioner.

¶8

3 The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner is engaged in business of rice milling, marketing and export of basmati rice. The petitioner has its mill at village Achheja, within limits of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Gautum Budh Nagar. The petitioner used to purchase paddy for milling from various states including U.P.

¶9

Under Section 17 (iii) of U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, within whose limits, agricultural produce is sold, is entitled to recover market fee and development cess on such sale. In order to promote export of basmati rice, State of U.P. has issued Government Order No. 1152/80-2-2005-02(12)/2000 dated 30.09.2005, by which basmati rice has been exempted from levy and some concession on sales tax was given. This Government Order also prescribed a mode for realization of sales tax, market fee and development cess. Under clause-3, recovery of rice from paddy has been fixed 66.66%, for aforesaid taxes. Out of which 50% rice has to be compulsorily exported but sale tax, market fee and development cess has to be assessed on 66.66% itself. The petitioner is registered and licensed by Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Noida.

¶10

Present dispute relates to kharif year 2009-10. In kharif year 2009-10, opening stock of paddy of the petitioner, purchased in U.P. was 78476.23

¶11

¶12

quintal. It purchased 1300234.16 quintal (total 1378710.39 quintal) and stock of 97417.16 quintal, remained in end of the year. Opening stock of paddy purchased from outside U.P. was 56798.05 quintal. It purchased 703292.94 quintal (total 760090.99 quintal) and stock of 1999.76 quintal remained at the end of the year. Total paddy used for hulling was 2039384.46 quintal and remaining stock was 99416.92 quintal.

¶13

Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, by the impugned order dated 17.05.2012 found that the petitioner had shown 1138618.17 quintal paddy, purchased in U.P. and recovery of rice of 719859.59 quintal at the rate of 63.22% i.e. while according to standard recovery of 66.66% it would be 759002.87 quintal as such the petitioner had shown less recovery of 39143.28 quintal. Similarly the petitioner purchased total 56798.05 quintal paddy from outside U.P. and less recovery of rice of 104945.13 quintal had been shown. The petitioner had exported 578016.06 quintal and sold in India 104945.13 quintal rice. Out of less recovery, 23561.06 quintal rice was shown as of full length rice (wand rice) of which market value has been assessed at the rate of Rs. 3500/- per quintal and 120527.35 quintal was shown as broken rice of which market value had been assessed at the rate of Rs. 1550/- per quintal on which market fee and development cess had been charged, on it. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in revision before the Director, which was dismissed by order dated 10.11.2017. Hence this writ petition has been filed.

¶14

I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. From clause-3 of Government Order No. 1152/80-22005-02(12)/2000 dated 30.09.2005, it is clear that 66.66% recovery of rice from paddy has to be counted for the purposes of realization of sales tax, market fee and development cess. The petitioner has shown recovery of 63.22% as such the respondents have not committed any illegality in charging market fee and development cess, on the recovery of rice rate of 66.66%. So far as findings in respect of full length rice (wand rice) is concerned, it is based upon the record of the petitioner showing the rice exported and sold in country. Finding of fact, in this respect, does not suffer from any illegality. Rate of full length rice and broken rice as fixed by the respondents has not been challenged by the petitioner either in the revision or

¶15

¶16

before this Court.

¶17

So far as the argument that once at the time of issuance of gate pass under Rules 50-A of the Rules, market fee and development cess have been paid, is concerned, gate pass has been issued for the purposes of purchase of paddy. There is no dispute in respect of quantity of paddy purchased in U.P. and outside U.P. Only dispute has been raised in respect of percentage of rice from paddy after its hulling. As stated above, under Government order, deemed recovery of rice of 66.66% has been provided, which has been done in the present case. There is no illegality in this respect.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.

¶19

Order Date :- 23.3.2018 mt

M/S Krbl Limited through Its Chairman and Managing Director v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Krbl Limited through Its Chairman and Managing Director v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahavir Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rakesh Kumar Dhuria Vs General Manager (Personal and Administration) Allahabad Bank and 02 Others

Mohammad Aziz Vs State of U.P. and 03 Others

Mahendra Pal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Krishna Gopal Vs H.D.F.C Bank Ltd. and Another

Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others