JAI RAM HANS RAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks the issuance of an appropriate writ quashing the assessment notice dated the 8th of january, 1970 (Annexure "a" to the petition) and the demand notice dated the 2nd of March, 1970 (Annexure "b" to the petition) and prohibiting the Market committee, Ambala Contonment (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) from recovering the petitioner, who is partnership firm carrying on its business as a licensed dealer in agricultural produce at village Mullana within the territorial jurisdiction of the Committee a sum of Rs. 4782. 68 and has arisen in these circumstances. According to the provisions of sub-rule (8) Rule 24 of the Punjab agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules (1962), (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) an auctioneer appointed by the Committee has to fill in relevant particulars in a book to be maintained in Form H and to secure the signatures of both the buyer and the seller to a transaction of sale of agricultural produce as soon as it has been auctioned. The practice is in vogue at Mandi Mullana is that such a book is maintained not only by the Committee's auctioneer but also by the licensed dealer who conducts the sale on behalf of his principal. On the 9th of December, 1969, the business premises of the petitioner were visited by the Committee's Secretary who found that no entries had been made by the petitioner in its book in Form H with regard to 10 transactions of sale, the auction and weighment of the goods covered by which had already taken place. The total value of such goods was found to be rs. 2204/-On the 8th of January, 1970, the Administrator of the Committee issued a notice (Annexure "a" to the petition) to the petitioner declaring that it had not furnished correct returns for the period from the 1st April, 1969 to the 9th of December, 1969, and that it was necessary to make an assessment in relation to it under rule 31 (1) of the Rules for the period above mentioned and directing it to attend the office of the Committee on the 19th of January, 1970, along with "accounts and documents" the details of which were not specified. Jai Ram, a partner of the petitioner, complied with the direction and produced all the accounts and documents maintained by it for the said period. He also "pleaded guilty and requested for pardon. " On the same day Administrator passed an order, the operative part of which runs as follows:-

(2.) THE orders contained in Annexures "a" and "b" to the petition have been challenged on the following grounds:--

(3.) THERE is no merit in any of the grounds set out above. The books produced by the petitioner before the Administrator no doubt contained entries with regard to the ten transactions in question but then those entries were made after the secretary of the Committee had visited the business premises of the petitioner and had taken exception to the omission of any reference to those transactions in the book maintained by the petitioner in Form H. The fraud having been detected, the petitioner certainly tried to cover it up by making entries ex post facto which cannot condone the fraud already detected. The Administrator was, therefore, fully justified in holding the books of account to be unreliable and the petitioner guilty of an intention of evading payment of market fees. Sub-rules (5), (7) and (8) of R. 31 of the Rules are quoted below:--