DCM Limited v. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Judgment
1. This petition seeks quashing of notices dated
14.1.2004, 31.1.2004, 12.8.2004, 27.6.2005, 10.8.2005,
24.9.2005, Annexures P.1, P.2, P.4, P.6, P.8 and P.9 seeking to recover fee under the Haryana Rural Development Fund Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act) for the years 1991-92 to 1993-94.
2. Case of the petitioner is that vide minutes dated
19.5.1992, Annexure P.10, a decision was taken that in case of cotton lint and maize, market fee will not be levied in the State of Haryana if the same had already been paid in the originating State. Accordingly from 30.7.1993, there was an amendment to the Haryana Rural Development Fund Rules, 1987 and HRDF fee was exempted on agricultural produce brought for CWP No.16291 of 2005 (O&M) 2 processing from outside the State. However, on 14.1.2004, the petitioner received notice Annexure P.1 requiring it to deposit an amount of Rs.8,53,772/- on account of HRDF fee, which was followed by further notices. The demand was barred by limitation under Article 113 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 and was also against statutory obligation under section 5(3) of the Act which required the burden of fee to be passed on to the purchaser, implying thereby that the demand
could not be raised for the first time after a long period which may prejudice the right of the petitioner for passing on the burden to the next purchaser.
3. In the reply, explanation given for the delay is pendency of some litigation in this Court and in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as there is no appearance for the contesting respondents.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the recovery will be barred by limitation under Article 113 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act and if the said period is not held to be applicable, recovery beyond reasonable time was not permissible. It was further submitted that no proper procedure for assessment had been taken and objections of the petitioner have not been considered. Reliance has been placed CWP No.16291 of 2005 (O&M) 3 on following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:- On applicability of Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. On recovery being time-barred. i) ii)