Narayan Shukla, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Bharat Ji Agrawal and Mr. S.M.K. Chaudhary, learned senior advocates assisted by Mr. Rahul Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B.D. Madhyan, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. M.M. Tripathi and Mr. N.C. Mehrotra, learned counsels for the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. Through the instant writ petition the petitioner has challenged the different orders passed by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Saharanpur, whereby the mandi fee has been imposed upon the petitioner on purchase of woods/bamboos in different financial years, as also the order dated April 11, 2005, passed by the Director of Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, State of U.P. in revision No. 98 of 2000 and other connected revisions, upholding the orders passed by the mandi samiti.
(2.) THE facts of the case as unfolded by the petitioner are described as under: The petitioner is a manufacturer of paper. To manufacture the paper it uses the woods, bamboos and industrial waste raw materials. It purchases the raw material within the State of U.P. as well as from outside the State of U.P. Though it has not mentioned the names of sellers, but it is stated that the names of sellers are mentioned in the revenue receipts and G.R. as consignor and the petitioner is mentioned as consignee. The sale in question is said to be inter -State sale, which was, as per version of the petitioner, completed outside the State of U.P. in respect of which form C, as prescribed under the Central Sales Tax Act, was issued and Central sales tax at the rate of Rs. 4 per cent was also paid by the petitioner to the ex -U.P. sales. In order to purchase from outside State, the petitioner issued form 31 to the consignor for sending the goods to the petitioner at Saharanpur. Though earlier the petitioner raised finger over the jurisdiction of mandi samiti to levy mandi fee over the sale and purchase of bamboo on the ground that it is not an agricultural produce, but later on since this controversy has been settled by the honourable Supreme Court, it accepted the bamboo as agricultural produce. Since respondent No. 3 passed the order dated March 29, 2000 levying mandi fee on the purchase of wood and bamboo, the petitioner filed several revisions against the levy of mandi fee for different years. The Director, Mandi Parishad, Lucknow, opposite party No. 2, consolidated all the revisions and dismissed all the revisions by a common order dated April 11, 2005.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 2 has failed to appreciate the agreements/purchase orders dated February 5, 2001 and invoice of selling dealer and the relevant documents of ex -U.P. sale of Yamunanagar and the transporter's agreement of the same date with Kapoor Goods Carriers, Yamunanagar as well as other connected documents. Similarly he has not appreciated the purchase order for purchase of bamboo placed on M/s. Hills Trade Agencies, Guwahati, Assam and the invoice raised by the Assam dealer to the petitioner, which were already on record. Thus, the petitioner has fielded several grounds for shifting the liability of payment upon the seller under section 17(iii)(b)(3) of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964. It is stated by the petitioner that since no sale took place within the market area of U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, there is no liability of the petitioner for payment of any mandi fee, whereas respondent No. 2 committed error in deciding the point Nos. 2 and 3 by completely overlooking the purchase orders dated April 5, 2001 of M/s. Green Timber Traders, M/s. Zigma Industries, M/s. Hills Trade Agencies as well as the transportation contract of M/s. Kapoor Goods Carrier, etc. Paragraphs 3 and 6 of the agreement dated April 5, 2001, which are relevant for consideration of the issue in question are quoted below: "3. Transport: You will hand over the entire quantity for transportation of the goods to our transporter M/s. Kapoor Goods Carriers, who shall take the delivery of the goods from the seller for and on our behalf. The transporter shall ensure while taking the delivery of the goods on our behalf that the same conform to the quantity and quality of the goods, which have been sold by you to us. The transporter, namely, M/s. Kapoor Goods Carrier shall be our agent and any inaction on the part of the transporter, we shall have full right to indemnify ourselves on account of any fault committed by the transporter as our agent. 6. Price Price for the goods payable by us shall be at Rs. 1,560 per tonne plus Central sales tax at four per cent against C form on receipt of the bills. It is further clearly understood and agreed by you that the price as mentioned above represents and shall be the total consideration payable by us to you in respect of the supplies of goods under this order and you shall not be entitled to claim any additional payments nor claim any escalations whether it be on account of increase of cost of material or otherwise. The above price is inclusive of local taxes or fee if any, in respect of the supplies of goods under the order.";