NAV BHARAT EXPORTS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order dated 22.10.2001 (Annexure 12 to the writ petition) and similar orders to other Mandi Samiti in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Further a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to seek repayment of Mandi fee and cess for the year 1995-96 to 1998-99 from the petitioner.

(2.) The facts arising out of the present writ petition are that the petitioner is involved in purchasing the paddy from different Mandies in the State of Uttar Pradesh and manufacturing Basmati Rice and exporting it to different countries. The State Government in order to give incentive to the millers and exporters to export rice outside the country, formed an Export Promotion Policy and provided certain reliefs to the millers and exporters from the year 1995-96. Under the aforesaid policy, if a miller purchased paddy from Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti in the State of Uttar Pradesh and manufactured rice and exported the same to countries outside India, such a miller and exporters shall not be liable to pay any Mandi Fees on the paddy purchased by it or on the rice exported outside the country and shall have to pay Mandi Fees only on the rice, which was broken or otherwise unfit for export and deemed to have been sold locally. The office memorandum dated 28.11.1995 explaining the conditions under which the miller and exporter of Basmati Rice shall be given exemption from Trade Tax levy and Mandi fees. It provides that the export obligation of the miller/exporter shall be deemed to be complete provided the miller/exporter exports the minimum percentage fixed for export obligation and it further provides that the recovery percentage of rice from paddy is fixed at 50% of the paddy. The petitioner has filed the said memorandum as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Petitioner submits that similar notifications have subsequently been issued on 7.1.1998 for the agriculture year 1997-98 and notification dated 24.10.1998 for the years 1998-2000.

(3.) The petitioner is miller and exporter of Basmati Rice. For the year 1995-96 the total recovery of rice from the paddy purchased by the petitioner was 64% out of which 47.95% was exported while 16.05 % which was broken and discoloured rice was deemed to have been sold in the local market, as such, the petitioner paid Mandy fees and other taxes on 16.05% of the broken rice. Similarly for the year 1996-97 the total recovery of Rice was 64.17% of which 47.92% Basmati Rice was exported while 16.25% broken and discoloured rice was deemed to be sold and the petitioner has paid the requisite fee for that. The same position was of 1997-98 when the recovery was 65.15% and exportable rice 48.93% and broken discoloured rice 16.22 %, similarly for the year 1998-99, the total recovery was 46.25% exported rice was 64.25% and 17.87% was broken and discoloured rice. As the petitioner's firm had manufactured and exported the entire exportable rice, it was not liable for payment of Mandi Fee and trade tax etc. on paddy purchased. A certificate to that effect has been given by the Senior Marketing Inspector dated 16.12.2000. Since the export promotion policy is normally declared by the State Government much after the start of the season, the petitioner used to purchase rice even before the export policy decision was notified for the year and the petitioner paid Mandi fees on the paddy purchased from different Mandies which became refundable only after the petitioner's firm had completed the export obligation. The Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bilaspur, where petitioner's mill is located, gave regular exemption certificate to the petitioner that the petitioner has complied the export obligation for the year 1995-96 to 1998-99. On the basis of the aforesaid certificate, the respondent No.3 issued directions to the different Mandi Samities to refund the Mandi fees to the petitioner and in pursuance of the aforesaid letter, various Mandi Samities have refunded the same. It appears that some Mandi Samities raised objection to the Director Mandi Parishad that since in the export policy dated 24.10.1998 it was provided that an exporter shall be entitled to exemption from Mandi Fees only if he exports a minimum of 50% of rice and since the petitioner had not exported 50%, it was not entitled to exemption and the refund of Mandi Fees paid by the petitioner for purchasing paddy.