Allahabad High Court
M/S Modern Hide Traders Through Its ... vs State Of ... on 3 March, 2020
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Court No. - 26 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 7413 of 2013 Petitioner :- M/S Modern Hide Traders Through Its Prop. Mohd. Yunus Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thr.Prin.Secy.Agriculture Marketing & Export Counsel for Petitioner :- Neerav Chitravanshi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,N.C. Mehrotra Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Mr. Ashok Nigam, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Mr. N.C. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 30.08.2013 passed by the respondent No.3/ Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti U.P. Lucknow, under Section 32 of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, whereby he has upheld the order dated 06.10.2008 passed by the Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Hapur, Ghaziabad. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is a trader of hides and skins, who purchases the hides and skins from different traders at different places and re-sell them to the different manufacturers and producers of leather goods.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court towards the provision of section 17(3) which entitles the respondents to collect market fee which shall be payable on transaction of sale of specified agricultural produce in the market area at such rates, being not less than one percentum and not more than two percentum of the price of the agricultural produce so sold, as the State Government may specify, by notification, and development cess which shall be payable on such transaction of sale at the rate of half percentum of the price of the agricultural produce so sold. It has been submitted that by means of notification issued the respondents hides and skins have been declared to be specified agricultural produce and are liable to be taxed by the respondents as such.
4. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 31.07.2007, whereby they were directed to pay the market fee for trading in hides and skins from the period January 2005 to March, 2006. The petitioner gave a detailed reply dated 20.08.2007, opposing the said levy and submitted that said fees was being levied contrary to the provisions of the Statute and also that petitioner has not conducted any transaction within the market area. They have also canvased the point that market fees can be levied by the respondents only when they provide any service and in absence of any service they are not entitled to either levy market fees on the petitioner or collect the same.
5. It has further been submitted that objections filed by petitioner were rejected by means of order dated 20.08.2007 passed by the Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Hapur. Against the said order petitioner preferred a revision before the Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti U.P. Lucknow, the said revision was allowed vide order dated 27.03.2008 and the matter was remanded back to the Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Hapur for fresh decision. After the remand the Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Hapur again passed an order on 06.10.2008 reiterating the levy of the market fees and development cess against the petitioner for the sale of hides and skins during the period February 2005 to March 2006 which order was again assailed in Revision No. 1153 of 2008 before the Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti U.P. Lucknow.
6. By means of the impugned order dated 30.08.2013 the revision has been dismissed. The counsel for the petitioner has urged that he has raised various objections to the levy of market fees which are enumerated in the memo of the revision, which has been annexed along with the revision. In paragraph No.11 of the memo of revision it has been clearly stated that Mandi Samiti, Hapur was not providing any services to the petitioner and therefore no market fees could have been levied by them in this regard. It was further submitted that the transaction for which he has been made liable to the market fee was never carried out in the market area and apart from other grounds the market fees as levied by the respondent No.4 was illegal, arbitrary.
7. On the other hand Mr. N.C. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the Revisional Authority has considered the grounds raised by the petitioner and he has concluded that during the period 25 November 2004 to 31.03.2006 market fees was leviable on the hides and skins and therefore he has rightly passed the order and no interference is required under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Asnok Kumar Dinesh Chandra and another [ 1996 (10) SCC 100].
8. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. A perusal of the impugned order 06.10.2008 passed by the Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti U.P. Lucknow would reveal that he has given his finding with regard to a single contention i.e. leviable of market fees, as per the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 for the period 25.11.2004 to 31.03.2006. Various grounds have been raised by the petitioner before the Revisional Authority which are duly enumerated in the memo of the revision. Some of the grounds go to the very root of the matter, which if decided in favour of the petitioner, the market fees could be levied on the petitioner. They have taken the plea that inasmuch as the respondents are not providing any services to the petitioner. It was not open for them to levy market fees, and in support of this contention they have placed a judgment of Division Bench passed by this Court in the case of U.P. Forest Corporation, Lucknow Vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and others reported in [1985 UPLBEC 1192] as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Kewal Krishan Vs. State of Punjab and others [AIR 1980 SC 1008]. In support of his contention it has been pointed that once the fact is established that no service has been rendered then the respondents cannot collect market fees.
10. The perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that none of the grounds canvassed by the petitioner have even been taken notice of much less considered by the revisional authority. The revisional authority in deciding the said matter is acting as quasi judicial authority and therefore it is duty bound to consider all the arguments raised by the parties, consider the same and give reasons with regard to the grounds raised by the petitioner while deciding the same. In case revisional authority fails to consider the grounds raised by the parties it may render the said judgment/order illegal and arbitrary and liable for interference by this Court in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The revisional authority has given his finding only with regard to the fact that the market fees was leviabale on hide and skins for the period from 25 November 2004 to 31.03.2006 and only on the basis of the said finding has rejected the revision preferred by the petitioner. The order is silent on all the rest of the grounds which have been raised by the petitioner.
11. In not considering any of the grounds raised by the petitioner, the Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti U.P. Lucknow has committed manifest error and on this ground also the petition is liable to be allowed.
12. In light of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 30.08.2013 passed by the respondent No.3/ Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti U.P. Lucknow is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent No.3/ Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti U.P. Lucknow to decide the revision preferred by the petitioner again by a reasoned and speaking order, expeditiously, say within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 3.3.2020 A.K. Singh (Alok Mathur, J.)