SATISH CHANDRA,J - (1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the recovery notice dated 21.11.2014 issued by respondent No.2 to the respondent No.3 for recovery of Rs.4,53,351/ - from the petitioner for the payment of interest on Cess and fee paid by the petitioner to respondent No.1 for the years 2008 -09 and 2009 -10.
(2.) SRI Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is duly licensed to run a Rice Mill. The petitioner is also a whole seller as per the license issued by the respondent No.1. The petitioner is under an obligation to pay market fee and Cess to the respondent from time to time, for the assessment year 2008 -09 and 2009 -10. The petitioner has made the payment by cheques, but the respondents never presented the cheques with the banks, so there was no question of dishonour of the cheques, especially when the same were not presented with the Bank. On 31.10.2012, the respondents have issued a notice to the petitioner stating that as per audit objection, no fee as well as Cess were paid by the petitioner. The cheques were dishonoured and as per the direction the petitioner has made the payment in cash to clear the dues. Now, the respondents are asking for the interest on the delayed payment, for which the petitioner is not responsible.
(3.) IT is the submission of learned counsel that bye -laws do not contemplate levy of interest and now, by the impugned notice, it has been specified that respondents are entitled to levy interest. Thus, there is no obligation upon the petitioner to pay any interest to the respondents. Lastly, he prayed that the impugned demand notice dated 21.11.2014 for charging interest for Rs.4,53,351/ - may kindly be set aside. On the other hand, Sri Satish Madhyan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 had justified the impugned demand. He submits that it is an old modus operendi to give cheques of due market fee and development cess and then dishourned the same and then after certain period of time, deposits the said amount in cash towards market fee and development cess in the account of Mandi Samiti directly and escape the payment of any interest on such delayed payment of market fee and development cess. He also submits that the modus operendi was adopted in connivance of a Clerk in the office of Mandi Samit, who is under investigation. The audit party specifically had taken an objection that delayed collection of market fee and development cess was made so the interest is to be charged. Therefore, the last notice dated 22.9.2014 was given to the petitioner to deposit the amount of interest as calculated by the Audit Team. However, on a specific query from the Bench learned counsel admitted that the cheques were given by the petitioner well in time, but the same were never presented with the Bank by the respondents.;