Bhola Prasad Jaiswal vs Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti

R.S. Garg, J.

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners challenge the assessment orders for the year 1981-82 and the recovery certificate issued by the respondents No. 2.

Brief facts leading to the petition are that the Madni Committee issued a notice to the petitioner on 16.9.1983 asking to deposit a sum of Rs. 2, 500/- as the Mandi Committee in its meeting dated 1.9.1983 had resolved by exercising powers u/s 21 to impose tax of Rs. 2500/- because of non-production of accounts and or for production of unreliable records. Immediately thereafter the petitioner showed the original receipts, bills, register etc. to the Officer of the Mandi Committee and obtained a receipt Annexure-C. Thereafter the petitioner submitted an application on 23.9.1983 to the Mandi Committee that the original records have already been produced, for inspection, to one Ramkhelawan therefore the notice dated 16.9.1983 be withdrawn. Without taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner, by another notice dated 9.10.1984 the respondent Mandi Committee informed the petitioner that if the amount of Rs. 2, 5007 is not paid it would be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The petitioner again submitted his application on 29.10.1984 and submitted that the proposed recovery is illegal as the records had already been produced for inspection. It appears that Annexure-G a notice, was issued by the Tahsildar u/s 148 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code for recovery of the amount. On 27.6.1985 in reply to the petitioner''s letter dated 3rd June, 1985 the Mandi Committee informed that the petitioner had only deposited a sum of Rs. 1462.25 and the recovery were in accordance with law.

According to section 19 as it stood in 1981 the Market Committee was entitled to levy market fees on notified agriculture produce brought for sale or sold in the market area at such rate might be fixed by the State Government. The market fee was payable by buyer of the notified agriculture produce and could not be deducted from the price payable to the seller provided if the buyer of notified agriculture produce could not be identified the said Market fees was payble by the seller of the persons who brought the produce for sale in the market area. According to section 28 of the Act any officer or servant of the Board or the Market Committee empowered by the State Government in this behalf may required any person carrying on business in the market Committee Area to produce before him the accounts, and documents and furnish information regarding the stocks of such agriculture produce or purchase. All accounts and registers maintained by any person shall be open to inspection at all reasonable times by such officer and servant of the Board or the Market Committee. If after the deposit of the tax the Market Committee, its officer or servant are not satisfied by the fee paid then they have authority to compel the seller/buyer to produce the accounts.

If a person required to produce the accounts or furnish information under sub-section (1) of section 20 fails to produce such accounts or to furnish such information or knowingly furnishes incomplete Or incorrect accounts or information or has not maintained proper accounts of the sales and delivery of the notified agriculture produce, the Market Committee shall under the provisions of the section 21 of the Act. in the prescribed manner, assess such person for the levied u/s 19.

In the instant case right from the beginning the petitioner have been contending that they had paid the full fee and were not under dues, they had been demanding the details but the Mandi Committee instead of supply of the particulars had merely repeated that the recovery was in accordance with law. It also does not appear from the orders/notices passed/issued by Krishi Upaj Mandi Committee that the petitioners were given any opportunity of any hearing before resolving the recovery of the said amount. Section 21 would come into effect after a notice is issued under sections 20, sub-section (1). Even otherwise it does not appear from the record, and this Court is forced to believe in absence of the return filed by the respondents, that no opportunity was given to the petitioner after they had submitted their replies to the reocvery notices. If a notice u/s 20, sub-section (1) is not issued to person dealing with a notified produce then powers u/s 21 of the Act cannot be exercised because the power to assess persons is based on the notice issued and inaction or misaction on the part of the dealer.

As there is no compliance of section 20 and as no opportunity of hearing was ever afforded to the petitioners before passing of the order and also alter submission of their reply to the recovery notice the recovery proposed is patently illegal. It deserves to and is accordingly quashed.

The petition deserves to and is accordingly allowed. The demand notice and revenue recovery certificate are quashed. It is made clear that if the respondent Committee is still of the opinion that the petitioners have not furnished correct statements or have not maintained the proper accounts or had produced incorrect or incomplete accounts then they shall be free to take action against the petitioners in accordance with law.

There shall be no order as to costs. Security amount, if any deposited by the petitioners, be refined after due verification.