Dismissed

M/S Parwati Lakh Udyog v. the Chairman, Agriculture Produce

Jharkhand HC22 Jan 2019SA/63/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed four second appeals filed by lac dealers challenging suits seeking declaration that agricultural market tax on lac was levied without jurisdiction. The Court held that lower courts correctly found the tax applicable for 2000-2001 as notifications deleting lac were not retrospective. Appeals on non-joinder and limitation also failed.

What did the court decide?

Contributed appeals were dismissed as there was no error in appreciating the impact of notifications or in the assessment of limitation and non-joinder.

M/S Parwati Lakh Udyog Vs the Chairman… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

S. A. No. 60 of 2011

¶3

M/s Tajna Shellac Private Limited, through its Director, Arun sharma, son of Sri Roshan Lal Sharma, Resident of Village Khunti, P.O. & P.S. Khunti, District- Ranchi now District Khunti. … … Appellant/Appellant/Plaintiff

¶4

Versus

¶5

The Chairman, Agriculture Produce Market Committee cumCertificate Officer, Khunti P.O. & P.S. Khunti, District Khunti 2. The Secretary, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Khunti, P.O. & P.S. Khunti, District Khunti

¶6

… … Respondents/Respondent/Defendants.

¶7

With

¶8

S. A. No. 61 of 2011

¶9

M/s Saraff Industries, village- Anigara, P.O. & P.S. Khunti, District- Ranchi Now District Khunti, through one of its Partner, Ram Gopal Sarawagi, son of Sri Tola Ram Sarawagi, Resident of Village Khunti, P.O. & P.S. Khunti, District- Ranchi now District Khunti.

¶10

… … Appellant/Appellant/Plaintiff

¶11

Versus

¶12

The Chairman, Agriculture Produce Market Committee cumCertificate Officer, Khunti P.O. & P.S. Khunti, District Khunti 2. The Secretary, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Khunti, P.O. & P.S. Khunti, District Khunti

¶13

… … Respondents/Respondent/Defendants.

¶14

With

¶15

S. A. No. 62 of 2011

¶16

M/s Jagdamba Lac Factory, village- Khunti, P.O. & P.S. Khunti, District- Ranchi Now District- Khunti, through its partner Anil Kumar Sarawagi, son of Sri Ram Avtar Sarawagi, Resident of Village Khunti, P.O. & P.S.- Khunti, District- Ranchi Now District-Khunti.

¶17

… … Appellant/Appellant/Plaintiff

¶18

Versus

¶19

The Chairman, Agriculture Produce Market Committee cumCertificate Officer, Khunti P.O. & P.S. Khunti, District Ranchi now District Khunti

¶20

The Secretary, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Khunti, P.O. & P.S. Khunti, District Ranchi now District Khunti … … Respondents/Respondent/Defendants.

¶21

With

¶22

S. A. No. 63 of 2011

¶23

M/s Parwati Lac Udyog, resident of village- Khunti, P.O. & P.S. Khunti, District-Ranchi now District Khunti, through its

¶24

¶25

partner, Ajay Kumar Sarawagi, son of Sri Shyam Sunder Saravagi, Resident of Village Khunti, P.O. & P.S. Khunti, District-Ranchi now District Khunti.

¶26

The Chairman, Agriculture Produce Market Committee cumCertificate Officer, Khunti P.O. & P.S. Khunti, District Ranchi now District Khunti

¶27

The Secretary, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Khunti, P.O. & P.S. Khunti, Ranchi Now District Khunti

¶28

… … Respondents/Respondent/Defendants.

¶29

--- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --For the Appellants : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate : For the Respondents ---

¶30

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶31

06 /22.01.2019

¶32

1. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in all the aforesaid cases.

¶33

2. All the aforesaid cases are being taken up together as they arise out of common judgment passed by the lower appellate court.

¶34

3. The corresponding number of Title Suit and Title Appeal are as follows:-

¶35

SI. No.	Second Appeal	Title Suit	Title Appeal
1.	60 of 2011	16 of 2004	142 of 2006
2.	61 of 2011	17 of 2004	140 of 2006
3.	62 of 2011	14 of 2004	139 of 2006
4.	63 of 2011	15 of 2004	141 of 2006

¶36

4. Counsel for the appellants submits that although there are concurrent finding of facts arrived at by both the courts below but the learned courts have not properly decided the issues in as much as the notification issued by the Government have not been properly considered. The levy of agricultural market tax for the period prior to notification published on 31.12.2002 is wholly without jurisdiction. By this notification, the Jharkhand Government deleted lac from the

¶37

¶38

items of taxable agricultural commodities. It has been argued that once the said notification dated 31.12.2002 was issued, the authority to levy agricultural market tax on lac was done away with, accordingly, the levy of agricultural market tax on lac for the period from 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2001 after issuance of notification dated 31.12.2002 was wholly without jurisdiction.

¶39

5. After hearing counsel for the appellants and after considering the materials on record, this Court finds that the plaintiffs claimed to have filed suits under the provisions of Section 43 of Bihar and Orrisa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 and following reliefs were prayed for the suit:-

¶40

“ a . It is declared that the defendant had no power or authority to levy agriculture produce market tax, under the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1960 on lac, after the notification published on 31.12.02 under which the Jharkhand Govt. deleted the lac from the item of taxable agricultural commodity.

¶41

b . The defendant be permanently restrained from realizing any amount of tax on lac from the plaintiff for the period from 1.4.2000 to 31.3.01 either by way of certificate proceeding or otherwise.

¶42

c . Cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff.

¶43

d . Any other relief or reliefs as the court deems fit in the circumstances of the case awarded to the plaintiff.

¶44

6. The order was passed by the learned Certificate Officer, Khunti in various certificate cases rejecting the show cause filed by the plaintiffs. The certificate cases were filed by the Secretary, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Khunti for realization of agricultural produce market tax from the appellants for the period 2000-01. Initially, lac was included in the list of agricultural produce and tax was imposed @ 1% on the sale and purchase of lac. However, later on, lac was removed from the list of taxable commodity vide notification dated 29.08.1986 issued by Government of Bihar. On

¶45

¶46

31.08.2000, just 75 days prior to the creation of Jharkhand, the Government of Bihar arbitrarily introduced agricultural produce market tax on lac and issued a notification in Bihar Gazette on 31.08.2000 against which the Lac Dealers Association approached the authorities and made representation and it was announced by the Jharkhand Assembly on 31.03.2001 that no tax on lac under the Act will be levied till the decision in the matter. Thereafter, the Government of Jharkhand again remove lac from the list of taxable commodity vide notification no. 5 dated 31.12.2002. The case of the plaintiffs was that immediately after issuance of the notification dated 31.12.2002, the agricultural department filed certificate case for realization of dues from the plaintiffs for the year 2000-01 and the specific case of the plaintiffs was that after the notification dated 31.12.2002, requisition under certificate are illegal and that the tax has been demanded for the period prior to 31.08.2000. The defendants filed written statement and contested the suit. It was the specific case of the defendants that the certificate case related to demand for the period 01.09.2000 to 31.03.2001. The number of certificate case for each plaintiff was different.

¶47

7. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were

¶48

framed:-

¶49

(i) Has the plaintiff valid cause of action for the suit? (ii) Is the order passed in certificate case abinitio void? (iii) Is the plaintiff entitled to get any relief or reliefs?

¶50

(iv) Is the suit maintable u/s 43 of the Bihar & Orissa P.D.R. Act? Has there been any fraud in the certificate case?

¶51

(v) Is the plaintiff entitled to get the benefit of provision of section 6 of the General Clauses Act?

¶52

8. The learned trial court after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the market committee constituted under Bihar/Jharkhand Agricultural Produce Market, 1960 was competent to impose tax on the sale and purchase of lac in the market area in between the period 01.09.2000 to

¶53

¶54

31.12.2002 and the suits were also dismissed. The learned trial court considered the fact of non-joinder of necessary party as the plaintiffs had failed to implead agricultural produce marketing committee as a defendant in the suit as per the provisions contained in Section 18 (2) sub-Clause (IV) of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Act, 1960. Appeals were filed and the appellate court by a well-reasoned order discussed all the grounds of appeals and arrived at the same finding as arrived by the learned trial court. The appellate court clearly held that all the plaintiffs have failed to implead agricultural produce market committee as the defendant in the suit in accordance with the Section 18 (2) sub-Clause (IV) of the suit. The suits have been filed in violation of the mandatory provisions contained in Section 46 of the said Act. It was also held that the suit was required to be filed within a period of six months as per the provisions of Section 43 of Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914, but, it was filed after much more time, therefore, the suits were also held to be time barred. 9. So far as the point raised by the counsel for the appellants that the lac having been deleted from the list of the commodities by the notification dated 31.12.2002 is concerned, this Court finds that this aspect of the matter has been properly considered by both the courts by holding that notification dated 31.12.2002 was not retrospective and the demands involved in these cases were for the period between 31.08.2000 to 31.12.2002. Considering the arguments, no question of law much less any substantial questions of law is involved in these cases and this Court finds that there has been no error in appreciating the impact of the notifications involved in this case.

¶55

10. Accordingly, these appeals are hereby dismissed.

¶56

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶57

Mukul

M/S Parwati Lakh Udyog v. the Chairman, Agriculture Produce

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Parwati Lakh Udyog v. the Chairman, Agriculture Produce

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

Br.Manager, Oriental Insurance Vs Dharamlal Deshi Dharmlal Deh

Ramgati Mahto Vs Lakshman Mahto And Ors.

Ms Santosh Kumar Chaurasia Vs The Chief Manager State Bank Of India

Kalam Uddin Khan And Ors. Vs Salda Bibi And Ors.

Anand Kumar Singh And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand Hast Nirmit Sabun Nirmata Sangh Through Its President Om Prakash Choudharia Vs Labour

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Br.Manager, Oriental Insurance Vs Dharamlal Deshi  Dharmlal Deh

Ramgati Mahto Vs Lakshman Mahto And Ors.

Ms Santosh Kumar Chaurasia Vs The Chief Manager State Bank Of India

Kalam Uddin Khan And Ors. Vs Salda Bibi And Ors.

Anand Kumar Singh And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand Hast Nirmit Sabun Nirmata Sangh Through Its President Om Prakash Choudharia Vs Labour

Br.Manager, Oriental Insurance Vs Dharamlal Deshi Dharmlal Deh