Sachdev Food Products Private ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3797 Chatt

                                    -1-


                                                                          NAFR
            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                          WPC No. 5297 of 2021
1. Piyush Parboiling Plant Having Its Registered Office Near Over Bridge,
   Bhatapara District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, Through Its
   Proprietor Roop Chand Tharani, Aged About 62 Years R/o Munshi Ismail
   Ward, VIP Colony, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara
   Chhattisgarh,
                                                                ---- Petitioner
                                  Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture,
   Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur
   Chhattisgarh
2. Deputy Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
   Bhawan, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Baloda Bazar, Through Its Secretary, Krishi Upaj
   Mandi Samiti, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh


                                                        ---Respondents

WPC No. 5306 of 2021

1. Sachdev Food Products Having Its Registered Office At 45, 46, 54, 58, Sachdev Food Products, Industrial Estate, Rawa Bhata , Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Through Its Partner Ajay Kumar Sachdev S/o Late Trilok Chand Sachdev Aged About 55 Years, R/o Trilok Sadan, Ruprela Gali, Fafadih, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner 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, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Raipur , Through Its Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents

WPC No. 5322 of 2021

1. Sachdev Food Products Private Limited Having Its Registered Office At Khasra No. 303/5 And 303/1, Industrial Area Urla, Borjhara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492009, Through Its Director Ajay Kumar Sachdev, S/o Late Trilok Chand Sachdev, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Trilok Sadan, Ruprela Gali, Fafadih, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

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 - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents

WPC No. 5335 of 2021

1. Annapurna Rice And Poha Mill Having Its Registered Office At Mandi Road, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazaar - Bhatapara. Chhattisgarh, Through Its Partner Sandeep Kumar Agrawal S/o Prem Chandra Agrawal Aged About 48 Years, R/o Near Sati Mandir, Nehru, Ward, Bhatapara, District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner 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, Naya 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 Chandresh Shrivastava, Dy. A. G.

and Ms. Shriya Mishra, Panel Lawyer.

For Respondent No.3 : Shri Amrito Das, Advocate along with Shri P. Acharya, P.L.

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

20.12.2021 .

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

Jyoti