KOMALCHAND CHAMPALALJI JAIN Vs. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner Komalchand who is carrying on the business in the name and style of M/s Durjan Sao Champalal jain, has sought relief that the recovery proceedings started by respondent no. 1 through respondent No. 2 are liable to be quashed. Respondent No. 2 despite notice and S. P. C. did not choose to appear in the Court. Respondent no. 2 is only the Recovery Officer, therefore, there are no returns on the record.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he had obtained a licence from respondent No. 1 for doing business as a trader and the said licence has been duly renewed from time to time. Respondent No. 1 is a Mandi Committee constituted under the M. P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act' ). According to the petitioner, respondent No. 1 for the year 1976-77 and 1977-78, i. e. from 1-11-1976 to 30-9-1978, started recovery proceedings for the recovery of Rs. 17,894. 96. According to the petitioner, the assessment was arrived at on the basis of value of goods at the point of bringing the goods within the market area. According to the petitioner, at the material time, market fee was payable by the buyer and not the seller as per section 19 (2) of the Act. The petitioner submits that the petitioner being a seller no Mandi tax could be recovered from him because such an action shall be contrary to section 19 of the Act. Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court delivered in Misc. Petition No. 825/1974, Tilakraj juneja vs. State, decided on 25-9-1978, it is submitted that it is only the purchaser/buyer who is liable to pay tax and not a seller or trader. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the licences of some of the traders were not being renewed by respondent No. 1 for non-payment of the Mandi tax levied against them, therefore, they filed Misc. Petition No. 712/1979, Naxminarayan vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. The said petition was decided on 22-11-1979, with the direction that as the decision of Tilakraj Juneja (supra) was pending consideration before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 136/1979, the petitioners of that petition shall furnish security to the satisfaction of the secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and on furnishing of the security their licences shall be renewed. The petitioner submits that in view of the pendency of the Appeal No. 136/79, before the Supreme Court, no recovery could be made or proceedings could be commenced against the petitioner who was merely a seller and not a buyer. The petitioner further submits that he had received notice from the office of respondent No. 2 for payment of the amount in relation to revenue case No. 108-A-76/78-79.

(3.) IN support of the petition, Shri Khirwadkar learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner is a seller, in view of the provisions of section 19 of the Act, no recovery can be made from him and the recovery proceedings initiated at the instance of respondent No. 1, by respondent No. 2, are patently illegal. It is also submitted that section 19 of the Act does not authorise collection of market fees on the goods brought for sale within the market area and the petitioner being a trader has only brought the goods for safe within the market area. He being a seller is not liable to pay Mandi tax. On the other hand, Shri Aradhe learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioner being a trader is liable to pay tax because he has brought/purchased taxable goods within the market area and even otherwise if he has sold the goods, then unless he discloses the details of the purchaser/buyer, he himself would be liable to pay Mandi tax.