Ritu Bahri, J.@mdashHeard counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is a Rice Sheller and is doing the business of shelling and custom milling of the paddy in the area of Market Committee, Mansa. The
petitioner was issued Form-O Assessment Notice No. 2362 dated 26.9.2011 (Annexure P6) by which he was directed to produce records of
29.9.2011.
The District Mandi Officer and Secretary, Market Committee at the time of conducting inquiry on 13.7.2011 found that there was no paddy in the
sheller. As per the records of the firm there was paddy crop on 13.7.2011 but on physical verification it was found that the same was not there. It
is not disputed by respondents No. 1 to 5 that no Assessment order was passed after the notice was issued. Without passing the Assessment
order Recovery Certificate amounting to Rs. 12,32,033.00 has been issued (Annexure P9). The stand of the respondents is that under Rule 31(3)
of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962 the petitioner could file an appeal before the Mandi Board within 60 days after
depositing 25% of the RDF and market fee.
2. At this stage, reference can be made to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Puri Oil Mills Limited Vs. Haryana State Agricultural
Marketing Board and Another, where notice to deposit market fee had been challenged on the ground that no assessment order had been passed
and the demand was made without giving an opportunity of hearing. In paragraph 3, the Division Bench observed as under:-
Admittedly, no assessment has been framed and without framing the assessment no demand could be raised, against the petitioner. Allegation
against the petitioner was that it had purchased large quantity of Sarson and Toria from other States and that it had neither deposited the Market
Fee and the HRDF, nor the LL Forms in the office of the Market Committee, Bahadurgarh. Straightaway, it was asked to deposit the Market Fee
and the HRDF within 7 days from the receipt of the notice, Annexure P-1. With the notice, respondents had also attached the details of the
transactions on which Market Fee and the HRDF had not been paid. Petitioner was at least entitled to a notice calling upon it to explain the
purchases made by it of Sarson and Toria from other States on which it had allegedly not paid the Market Fee and the HRDF. Basic principle of
justice is that nobody can be condemned unheard. In this case, petitioner has been fastened with the liability of more than Rs. 75,000/- in an
arbitrary manner without affording adequate opportunity to defend itself.
3. In the facts of the present case, the Recovery Certificate (Annexure P9) has been issued without framing any assessment which is mandatory
under Rule 31(7) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962. When an order is passed under Rule 31(7) of the Punjab
Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962 then the petitioner can file an appeal under Rule 31(13) of the said Rule. Hence, in the
present case the respondents are requiring the petitioner to pay the market fee as per the Recovery Certificate (Annexure P9) without passing an
assessment order. The Recovery Certificate (Annexure P9) is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondents to pass an assessment
order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The petition is disposed of.
