ASHOK KUMAR S/O LATE RAJA RAM AGARWAL, PROPRIETOR RAJA RAM ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought a writ, in the nature of certiorari to quash the Circular dated 18 -03 -2009 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) and letter No. 172/XXVII/AA. SA.V./2009, dated 06 -03 -2008 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. Further prayer was also made to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the above impugned Circular dated 18 -03 -2009 and letter dated 06 -03 -2008, inconsistent against the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax, 2005.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this petition, are that the petitioner is a registered dealer with the Commercial Tax Department and dealing in sale and purchase of agriculture produce as commission agent or Arhatiya. Being a commission agent, he is also registered with Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti as per the provision of U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 and rules thereof. He use to pay the market fee on the transactions of sale of specified agriculture produce in the market area at such rates, being not less than one percentum and not more than two and half percentum of the price of the agriculture produce sold, as the State Government may specify by notification, and development cess which shall be payable on such transactions of sale at the rate of half percentum of the price of the agriculture produce sold, under the provisions of Section 17(iii)(b) of U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 1, State of Uttarakhand through its Principal Secretary Finance, issued a Circular on 18 -03 -2009 stating therein that the market -fee (Mandi Shulk) is included in Sale Price as defined under Section 2(42) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax, 2005, whereas the same is not included in the definition of Sale Price. It is also averred in the petition that the impugned circular was issued by respondent No. 1 after obtaining the advice of Law Secretary, State of Uttarakhand. According to the petitioner, the impugned circular is against the definition of Sale Price, hence liable to be quashed.