SATNAM OVERSEAS LIMITED Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present writ petitions is filed assailing the order dated 24.5.2002 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Assessing Authority, Notified Market Area, Sonepat - respondent No. 3 and order dated 10.11.2008 passed by the appellate authority under the Haryana Rural Development Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner bought the agricultural produce for processing from outside the State of Haryana during the year 1996-97 to 1999-2000. The Market Committee raised demand of Rs. 57,84,841/- on account of Haryana Rural Development Fee (hereinafter referred to as F1RDF) with effect from June, 1999. As per the petitioner, since the petitioner purchased all the agricultural produce in Delhi and delivery of the produce was handed over by the seller in Delhi and after paying market fee in Delhi, he bought agriculture produce for processing in Haryana, hence, he is not liable to pay any HRDF. The petitioner further submitted that no notice was ever issued before the assessment order, hence the order passed by the Assessing Authority and thereafter, by the appellate authority cannot stay in the eye of law and must be quashed.

(3.) The respondents refuted the claim of the petitioner and took the stand that the petitioner failed to prove that sale took place outside Haryana and delivery was handed over to the petitioner by the seller of the agricultural produce in Delhi. Hence, the petitioner is liable to pay HRDF. Further case of the respondents is that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity. Not only this, show cause notice was also issued and the petitioner most of the time requested the authority to check the official record. The assessment order was passed after full opportunity to the petitioner.