Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2356 (ALL)

Mukesh Kumar v. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti

2016-07-08

MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, V.K.SHUKLA

body2016
JUDGMENT Mukesh Kumar is before this Court with the request to quash the notice dated 20.5.2016, filed as annexure 4 to the writ petition with the further prayer that the said notice be not implemented and given effect to by adopting any coercive measures against the petitioner. 2. Mukesh Kumar is trying to submit before this Court that he is liable to pay simple interest at the rate of 20% and not at all compound interest at the rate of 24%, as has been agreed upon, in view of this, this Court should come to rescue and reprieve of the petitioner and it has also been submitted that incorrect computation has been made. 3. Sri Archit Madhyan, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Satish Madhyan, Advocate, on the other hand, contended that petitioner has been allotted the shop in question way back in the year 2005 and there has been persistent default in making payment of the premium amount as well as the due interest alongwith the belated interest and, in view of this, there is no infirmity whatsoever in the proceedings, that have been so undertaken as against him. 4. As far as first prayer of the petitioner is concerned that interest should be charged at the rate of 20% cannot be accorded by us, and at the first instance such question of fact should be answered by the authority concerned as to whether interest would be chargeable at the rate of 20% as per the agreement or it would be chargeable at the rate of 24%, as is being contended, inasmuch as, Section 17 (4) (iii-a) of U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, clearly proceeds to make a mention to realize interest calculated in the manner prescribed in the bye-laws (at the rate prescribed in the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 for the unpaid amount of trade tax) on the unpaid amount of market fee from the date immediately following the period prescribed for payment of market fee in the bye-laws. This much fact has been accepted that under Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 the rate of interest, that has been so prescribed, is 24%. This much fact has been accepted that under Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 the rate of interest, that has been so prescribed, is 24%. Once a statute clearly proceeds to incorporate the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 for realizing the tax in question and rate of interest is provide therein, then we cannot reduce the rate of interest, that has been so prescribed in Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948, but certainly as to whether the said provisions are applicable or attracted is a question to be answered by the authority concerned. 5. In view of the above, prayer made on behalf of petitioner cannot be accepted by us and the orders passed by this Court on the earlier occasion i.e. 14.12.2015 and 22.1.2016, accordingly, cannot be followed by us, in view of this, once there is a notice clearly mentioning therein that there has been default and qua each head the amount, that is liable to be paid, same has been specified, we cannot accord any relief to the petitioner at this stage but we leave it open to the petitioner to raise this issue of rate of interest before the authority concerned who will look into the matter and pass reasoned order. 6. Petitioner's counsel at last has contended that facility of instalment be accorded to him in reference of other amount due. 7. As far as such request is concerned, even the said request cannot be accorded by us but certainly in case petitioner deposit a sum of Rs. 5 Lakh within one month from today, then in that event it is always open to Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti to consider such a request of petitioner, in accordance with law. With this, writ petition is disposed of.