SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) M /s Singla Rice Mills, Barnala, a sole proprietorship firm, has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the assessment order dated 22.5.2006 (Annexure P-12) for the period from 1.4.1999 to 31.10.2000 and the order dated 19.7.2007 (Annexure P-14) passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby the appeal against the aforesaid assessment order and the demand notice dated 1.8.2006 has been dismissed.
(2.) IN the present case, the petitioner firm is a registered dealer for the notified market area Barnala under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is engaged in the milling and shelling of paddy into rice. It is the case of the petitioner firm that for this purpose, it used to purchase paddy within the State of Punjab including the market yards of Barnala and from outside the State of Punjab. The petitioner firm after purchasing paddy from different areas used to process the same for making the rice and thereafter sells the rice to different traders in and outside the State of Punjab. It is the case of the petitioner firm that it is not liable to pay the market fee and Rural Development Fund on the paddy purchased by it from outside the State of Punjab. As per Rule 29 (7) (8) and Rule 30 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), as framed under the Act, the agriculture produce shall be deemed to have been brought and sold in a notified area if the agreement of sale or purchase is entered in that notified area; agricultural produce is weighed in said area; agricultural produce is delivered to the purchaser in the said area, and only then a person is liable to pay the market fee. Since the petitioner firm has purchased the paddy from Uttar Pradesh, which was weighed in Uttar Pradesh and delivery had also taken place in Uttar Pradesh, and then the same was transported by the petitioner firm at its own risk, responsibility and expenditure, therefore, the petitioner firm was not liable to pay market fee and Rural Development Fund on the said purchase. It is the case of the petitioner firm that while ignoring these purchases, the Assessing Authority - Market Committee, Barnala, wrongly framed the assessment vide order dated 22.5.2006 for the period from1.4.1999 to 31.10.2000 and a demand of Rs. 1,60,100/- was created. Thereafter, a demand notice dated 1.8.2006 was also issued.
(3.) UNDISPUTEDLY , against the said assessment order and the demand notice, the petitioner firm filed an appeal under Rule 31 (13) of the Rules before the Appellate Authority. The said appeal has been dismissed vide order dated 19.7.2007 and the order of assessment has been confirmed. Against the aforesaid orders, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner firm. We have heard counsel for the petitioner firm and gone through the impugned orders.;