Remanded

M/S Ganpati Rice Mills v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Mar 2014CWP/21934/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a Recovery Certificate issued to the petitioner without a prior assessment order. The matter was remanded to the respondents to pass an assessment order after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, relying on mandatory rules and precedent.

What did the court decide?

The Recovery Certificate (Annexure P9) has been set aside, and the matter is remanded to the respondents to pass an assessment order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

M/S Ganpati Rice Mills Vs State of Punjab and… — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

C.W.P. No. 21934 of 2012 [ 1 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶3

C.W.P. No. 21934 of 2012 Date of Decision:March 21, 2014

¶4

M/s Ganpati Rice Mills, Mansa through its partner Shiv Kumar ...................... ............. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab and others .................. Respondents

¶7

Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri

¶8

1.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶9

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶10

Present: Mr. L.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner/s.

¶11

Ms. Jarnail Kaur Dhaliwal, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 5.

¶12

Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.8.

¶13

RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)

¶14

Heard counsel for the parties.

¶15

The petitioner is a Rice Sheller and is doing the business of shelling and custom milling of the paddy in the area of Market Committee, Mansa. The petitioner was issued Form-O Assessment Notice No.2362 dated 26.9.2011 (Annexure P6) by which he was directed to produce records

¶16

Kaur Rupinder 2014.03.25 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

C.W.P. No. 21934 of 2012

¶18

[ 2 ]

¶19

of 29.9.2011.

¶20

The District Mandi Officer and Secretary, Market Committee at the time of conducting inquiry on 13.7.2011 found that there was no paddy in the sheller. As per the records of the firm there was paddy crop on 13.7.2011 but on physical verification it was found that the same was not there. It is not disputed by respondents No. 1 to 5 that no Assessment order was passed after the notice was issued. Without passing the Assessment order Recovery Certificate amounting to `12,32,033.00 has been issued (Annexure P9). The stand of the respondents is that under Rule 31(3) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962 the petitioner could file an appeal before the Mandi Board within 60 days after depositing 25% of the RDF and market fee.

¶21

At this stage, reference can be made to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in M/s Puri Oil Mills Ltd. v. Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula 1997 (1) PLR 226 where notice to deposit market fee had been challenged on the ground that no assessment order had been passed and the demand was made without giving an opportunity of hearing. In paragraph 3, the Division Bench observed as under:-

¶22

“Admittedly, no assessment has been framed and without framing the assessment no demand could

¶23

Kaur Rupinder 2014.03.25 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶24

C.W.P. No. 21934 of 2012

¶25

[ 3 ]

¶26

be raised, against the petitioner. Allegation against the petitioner was that it had purchased large quantity of Sarson and Toria from other States and that it had neither deposited the Market Fee and the HRDF, nor the LL Forms in the office of the Market Committee, Bahadurgarh. Straightaway, it was asked to deposit the Market Fee and the HRDF within 7 days from the receipt of the notice, Annexure P-1. With the notice, respondents had also attached the details of the transactions on which Market Fee and the HRDF had not been paid. Petitioner was at least entitled to a notice calling upon it to explain the purchases made by it of Sarson and Toria from other States on which it had allegedly not paid the Market Fee and the HRDF. Basic principle of justice is that nobody can be condemned unheard. In this case, petitioner has been fastened with the liability of more than `75,000/- in an arbitrary manner without affording adequate opportunity to defend itself.”

¶27

In the facts of the present case, the Recovery Certificate (Annexure P9) has been issued without framing any assessment which is mandatory under Rule 31(7) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962.

¶28

Kaur Rupinder 2014.03.25 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶29

C.W.P. No. 21934 of 2012 [ 4 ]

¶30

When an order is passed under Rule 31(7) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962 then the petitioner can file an appeal under Section 31(13) of the said Rule. Hence, in the present case the respondents are requiring the petitioner to pay the market fee as per the Recovery Certificate (Annexure P9) without passing an assessment order.

¶31

The Recovery Certificate (Annexure P9) is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondents to pass an assessment order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶32

The petition is disposed of.

¶33

( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE

¶34

21.3.2014 rupi

¶35

Kaur Rupinder 2014.03.25 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

M/S Ganpati Rice Mills v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Ganpati Rice Mills v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Haryana and Ors. Vs M/S Gupta and Company and Anr.

Mamta Rani Vs State of Hy.Etc.

Jalandhar Rubber Goods Vs Pseb

Parveen Vs State of Haryana and Others

Gaurav Sharma Vs State of Punjab and Others

Ashok Kumar Vs Dc, Hissar and Anr.