M/S.Rba Textiles P Ltd., vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8921 AP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 8921 AP
Judgement Date : 22 November, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

M/S.Rba Textiles P Ltd., vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. ... on 22 November, 2022

         THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

                   WRIT PETITION No.6553 OF 2015

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

".....to issue a Writ or order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in passing the proceedings, dated 26.12.2014 and the same was served on the petitioner on 24.01.2015 as arbitrary, contrary to law weight of evidence and probabilities of case without authority of law barred by limitation and consequently set aside the assessment proceedings passed under A.P (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock), Markets Act, 1966 and as amended from time to time as null and void and pass such other orders...."

2. Heard Mr. Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned Mr. B. Prakasam, learned Standing

Counsel for the respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a

private limited company and doing business of cotton and

cotton yarn. The 2nd respondent issued an assessment

proceedings levying tax on local purpose of cotton lint for the

year 2009-10 under A.P. (Agricultural Produce & Live Stock)

Market Act, 1996 and the 2nd respondent issued proceedings to

the petitioner dated 26.12.2014 levying market fee of Rs. 2,89,123/-. Again the 2nd respondent issued notice for payment

of market fee due for the month of January, February, 2010

stating that evidence for the market fee to the value of Rs.

3,12,93,618/- for the purpose of cotton made within the A.P

was not produced and that requested to produce any such

evidence for claiming exemption or else pay Rs. 3,12,936/-

being market fee. Subsequently the petitioner was clarified the

issue and same is placed on record. It is contended that without

issuing any show-cause notice and without considering the

explanation submitted by the petitioner, directly assessment

proceedings issued to the petitioner is highly illegal and

arbitrary. Hence inaction of the respondents is questioned in

this writ petition.

4. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner

contended that the respondents without conducting elaborate

enquiry and issued impugned order against the petitioner by

levying tax is highly illegal and arbitrary and requested to

remand the matter to the respondents for conducting elaborate

enquiry and for final report.

5. Whereas learned Standing Counsel for the respondents

contended that in view of non compliance of the demand of the respondents and failed to pay the tax as per proceedings. The

petitioner is failed to produce any evidence for claiming

exemption. Therefore the respondents issued show-cause notice

and the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not satisfied

by the authorities has passed impugned order. Therefore

vehemently opposed to grant relief in favour of the petitioner

and he further contended that he has no objection to remand

back the matter to the 2nd respondent for conducting fresh

enquiry in the matter.

6. Therefore, it is needless to emphasize the order is devoid

of reasons and bereft of following the principles of natural

justice. In similar circumstances, this Court passed an order

holding that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the

petitioner therein and his explanation was not considered by the

authority, set aside the impugned order of termination of the

petitioner therein from the service and directed the concerned

authority to pass appropriate order after affording a personal

hearing to the petitioner. The said order squarely applies to the

facts of the case on hand.

7. Further learned counsel for the petitioner draws the

attention of this Court with regard to Section 12-B of A.P (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, which

reproduce the same hereunder:

"12-B. Assessment of market fees:- (1) If the assessing authority is satisfied that any return submitted under Section 12-A is correct and complete, it shall assess the amount of market fees payable by the trader on the basis thereof; but if the return appears to it to be incorrect or incomplete, it shall, after giving the trader an opportunity of providing the correctness and completeness of the returns submitted by him and after making such inquiry as it considers necessary, assess to the best of its judgment the amount of market fees due from the trader. An assessment under this section shall however, be made only within a period of three years from the expiry of the year to which the assessment relates."

Though, admittedly the petitioner submitted his

explanation, the same was not considered and no personal

hearing was also granted to the petitioner. Therefore, the writ

petition is maintainable.

8. In Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade

Marks, Mumbai and others1 regarding maintainability of writ

petition in the context of availability of alternative and

efficacious remedy, the Apex Court held thus:

14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the

AIR 1999 SC 22 = MANU/SC/0664/1998 nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, prohibition, Qua Warranto and Certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose".

15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the Writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged (emphasis supplied).

The instant case falls in one of the exceptions carved out

by the Apex Court, the principles of natural justice is a casualty

here.

9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

and submissions of the both the counsel, the impugned

proceedings dated 26.12.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent

against the petitioner is hereby set aside while directing the

petitioner to put forth his objections before the 2nd respondent,

on such submission of objections, the 2nd respondent is directed

to answer the same. Accordingly the matter is remanded back to the 2nd respondent with a direction to conduct fresh enquiry

and pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law, as

expeditiously as possible.