UNITED RICELAND LIMITED Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for quashing of the notices Annexures P1 and P2 issued by the Assessing Authority of the Market Committee, Nilokheri (respondent No. 2) under the Haryana Rural Development Rules, 1987 (for short, the 1987 Rules).

(2.) THE petitioner is registered as a dealer under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (as applicable to the State of Haryana) (for short, the 1961 Act). It is engaged in the manufacture of rice from the paddy purchased within and outside the State of Haryana and on the purchase of paddy, it is liable to pay Haryana Rural Development Fund (for short, HRDF) in accordance with provisions of th Haryana Rural Development Act, 1986 (for short, the 1986 Act) read with the 1987 Rules.

(3.) IN the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, it has been averred that action for recovery of HRDF has been initiated after giving notice dated 11.11.1998 to the petitioner under Section 33-A of the 1961 Act for production of records pertaining to the period from 1.4.1996 to 31.3.1998 because the relevant record was not produced. The respondents have further averred that the petitioner is a habitual defaulter in paying HRDF and after receipt of the impugned notice, it has voluntarily deposited the amount of HRDF with penalty. Along with the written statement, the respondents have enclosed copies of notices issued under Section 33-A of the 1961 Act containing the particulars of the proforma of checking of account books of the petitioner.