DCM LIMITED Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition seeks quashing of notices dated 14.1.2004, 31.1.2004, 12.8.2004, 27.6.2005, 10.8.2005, .24.9.2005, Annexures P.1, P.2, P.4, P.6, P.8 and P.9 seeking to recover fee under the Haryana Rural Development Fund Act, 1986 (for short, 'the Act) for the years 1991-92 to 1993-94.

(2.) Case of the petitioner is that vide minutes dated 19.5.1992, Annexure P.10, a decision was taken that in case of cotton lint and maize, market fee will not be levied in the State of Haryana if the same had already been paid in the originating State. Accordingly from 30.7.1993, there was an amendment to the Haryana Rural Development Fund Rules, 1987 and HRDF fee was exempted on agricultural produce brought for processing from outside the State. However, on 14.1.2004, the petitioner received notice Annexure P.1 requiring it to deposit an amount of Rs. 8,53,772/- on account of HRDF fee, which was followed by further notices. The demand was barred by limitation under Article 113 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 and was also against statutory obligation under Section 5(3) of the Act which required the burden of fee to be passed on to the purchaser, implying thereby that the demand could not be raised for the first time alter a long period which may prejudice the right of the petitioner for passing on the burden to the next purchaser.

(3.) In the reply, explanation given for the delay is pendency of some litigation in mis Court and in the Hon'ble Supreme Court.