Jai Durga Rice Mill vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3738 Chatt

                                  -1-


                                                                       NAFR
           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                   Writ Petition (C) No. 5250 of 2021

   Jai Durga Rice Mill Having Its Registered Office At Link Road, Bhatapara,
   District Baloda - Bazaar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh Through Its Partner
   Mukesh Kumar Tharani S/o Bhagwan Das Tharani Aged About 52 Years
   R/o Munshi Ismail Ward, Vip Colony, Bhatapara, District Baloda - Bazaar
   Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
                                                           ---Petitioner(s)
                             Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Agriculture,
   Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Deputy Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
   Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Baloda Bazaar, Through Its Secretary, Krishi
   Upaj Mandi Samiti, District - Baloda Bazaar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh
                                                          ---Respondents

Writ Petition (C) No. 5254 of 2021

Shri Karani Traders Having Its Registered Office At Gandhi Mandir Ward, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazaar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh Through Its Partner Arun Kumar Mundhra S/o Late Durgadas Mundhra Aged About 54 Years, R/o Sadar Bazar Ward, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazaar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

---Petitioner(s) Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Deputy Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Baloda Bazaar, Through Its Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, District - Baloda Bazaar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

---Respondents & Writ Petition (C) No. 5256 of 2021

Siyaram Rice Mill Having Its Registered Office At Gram Kholwa, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, Through Its Partner, Sandeep Kumar Agrawal S/o Prem Chandra Agrawal, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Near Sati Mandir, Nehru Ward, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

---Petitioner(s) Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Deputy Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Baloda Bazaar, Through Its Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, District - Baloda Bazaar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

---Respondents

For Petitioners : Shri Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Ashish Tiwari, Govt. Advocate, Ms. Astha Shukla and Ms. Shriya Mishra, Panel Lawyers.

For Respondent No.3 : Shri Amrito Das, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

16.12.2021 .

1. Since common facts and issues are involved in all these writ petitions, they

are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The writ petitions have been filed for the following relief(s)-

"10.2. To issue a writ of appropriate nature directing the respondent to suspend and not to invoke Section 19(1)(ii) of the Chhattisgarh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 for the levy of market fee on the petitioner for paddy brought from outside the State for processing and manufacturing where transaction has not taken place with the market area being arbitrary and illegal."

3. The petitioners seem to be apprehending levy of market fees by the

respondent No.3. for the paddy which they intend to mill at their Rice Mills

which is coming from outside the territories of the State of Chhattisgarh.

Learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the judgment of Supreme

Court in case of Gujarat Ambuja Exports Limited and Another Vs. State of

Uttarakhand and Others, 2016 (3) SCC 601 submits that the pari-materia

provision applicable in the State of Uttarakhand has already been struck

down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment. That, further on the

basis of the aforesaid judgment in the case of Gujarat Ambuja (Supra) the

Division Bench of this High Court also in bunch of writ petitions, leading

case of which being WPC No.1207 of 2019 (Shree Sita Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd.

Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) decided on 08.05.2019, have

reiterated the stand taken in the said judgment and have in paragraphs

5&6 held as under:

"5. In view of the statement made, we dispose of all the Writ Petitions with the direction that the respondents shall not invoke Section 19 (1) (ii) of the Adhiniyam, 1972 for levy of market fee on the petitioners for paddy brought from outside the State for processing and manufacturing where transaction has not taken place within the market area.

6. If the statute permits levy of market fees for any other transaction, than what is covered under Section 19 (1) (ii) of the Adhiniyam, 1972, the concerned market committee would be at liberty to consider the same on transaction basis."

4. Today, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 as also the counsel

for State make a statement that both the State of Chhattisgarh as also the

respondent No.3 have been abiding by the judgment of Division Bench in

case of Shree Sita Agro Tech (Supra). The whole contention of the counsel

appearing for the respondents are that the respondents under no

circumstances would be levying market fees on the paddy which is being

brought from outside of territories of the State of Chhattisgarh only for the

purpose of milling and manufacturing subject to the finish product i.e. rice

or paddy not being sold or transacted in any manner within the territories

of the State of Chhattisgarh. According to the respondents counsel, if the

petitioners after milling sends back the finished product to the place where

if came from for milling the market fees will not be levied otherwise the

product becomes leviable.

5. The apprehension raised by the learned counsel for the respondents have

been squarely dealt with in the aforementioned judgment of Division

Bench of this High Court in Shree Sita Agro Tech (Supra).

6. Given the aforesaid statements made by the counsel appearing for the

respondents and the stand that have been taken by the respondents, the

petitioners should not have any apprehension as of now so far as the

respondents levying market fees on paddy which is being brought from

outside the territories of the State of Chhattisgarh into the petitioners

establishment only for milling/processing/manufacturing and thereafter

returning it back to the source from where it has come. However, the

petitioners would be subjected to levy of any other tax or fees, as the case

may be, in case if the paddy which has been brought from outside the

territories of the State of Chhattisgarh is being sold either in the form of

paddy or in the form of finished product after processing within the State of

Chhattisgarh.

7. With the aforesaid observations and the judgment referred to in the

preceding paragraphs, all the writ petitions stand disposed of.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge

inder